Interventions to improve medicines optimisation in frail older patients in secondary and acute care settings: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

Background: Frailty is a geriatric syndrome in which physiological systems have decreased reserve and resistance against stressors. Frailty is associated with polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing and unfavourable clinical outcomes. Aim: To identify and evaluate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions designed to optimise the medications of frail older patients, aged 65 years and over, in secondary or acute care settings. Method: Literature searches were conducted across seven electronic databases and three trial registries from the date of inception to October 2021. All types of interventional studies were included. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Three RCTs were eligible for inclusion; two employed deprescribing as the intervention, and one used comprehensive geriatric assessment. All reported significant improvements in prescribing appropriateness. One study investigated the effect of the intervention on clinical outcomes including hospital presentations, falls, fracture, quality of life and mortality, and reported no significant differences in these outcomes, but did report a significant reduction in monthly medication cost. Two of the included studies were assessed as having ‘some concerns’ of bias, and one was judged to be at ‘high risk’ of bias. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that medicines optimisation interventions may improve medication appropriateness in frail older inpatients. However, it highlights the paucity of high-quality evidence that examines the impact of medicines optimisation on quality of prescribing and clinical outcomes for frail older inpatients. High-quality studies are needed to address this gap.

Ensuring the quality and quantity of personal protective equipment (PPE) by enhancing the procurement process in Northern Ireland during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Challenges in the procurement process for PPE in NI

This article outlines the purchasing process for personal protective equipment that was established for Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland in response to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. The Business Services Organisation Procurement and Logistics Service, who are the sole provider of goods and services for Health and Social Care organisations, was faced with an unprecedented demand for personal protective equipment in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The usual procurement process was further complicated by changing messages within guidelines which resulted in confusion and anxiety when determining whether or not a product would meet the required safety guidance and was therefore suitable for purchase. In order to address these issues in a rapidly changing and escalating scenario the Department of Health asked the Business Services Organisation Procurement and Logistics Service to work with the Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre to maximise the availability of personal protective equipment whilst ensuring that it met all requisite quality and standards. A process was implemented whereby the Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre validated all pertinent essential documentation relating to products to ensure that all applicable standards were met, with the Business Services Organisation Procurement and Logistics Service completing all procurement due diligence tasks in line with both normal and coronavirus disease 2019 emergency derogations. It is evident from the data presented that whilst there were a significant number of potential options for supply, a large proportion of these were rejected due to failure to meet the quality assurance criteria. Thus, by the process that was put in place, a large number of unsuitable products were not purchased and only those that met extant standards were approved.

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions and barriers to medicines optimisation among older adults in primary care settings: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo identify factors that likely contribute to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) among older adults in primary care settings, as well as barriers to medicines optimisation and recommended potential solutions.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaQuantitative studies that analysed the factors associated with PIPs among older adults (≥65 years) in primary care settings, and qualitative studies that explored perceived barriers and potential solutions to medicines optimisation for this population.Information sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang.ResultsOf the 13 167 studies identified, 50 were included (14 qualitative, 34 cross-sectional and 2 cohort). Nearly all quantitative studies examined patient-related non-clinical factors (eg, age) and clinical factors (eg, number of medications) and nine studies examined prescriber-related factors (eg, physician age). A greater number of medications were identified as positively associated with PIPs in 25 quantitative studies, and a higher number of comorbidities, physical comorbidities and psychiatric comorbidities were identified as patient-related clinical risk factors for PIPs. However, other factors showed inconsistent associations with the PIPs. Barriers to medicines optimisation emerged within four analytical themes: prescriber related (eg, inadequate knowledge, concerns of adverse consequences, clinical inertia, lack of communication), patient related (eg, limited understanding, patient non-adherence, drug dependency), environment related (eg, lack of integrated care, insufficient investment, time constraints) and technology related (eg, complexity of implementation and inapplicable guidance). Recommended potential solutions were based on each theme of the barriers identified accordingly (eg, prescriber-related factors: incorporating training courses into continuing medical education).ConclusionsOlder adults with more drugs prescribed and comorbidities may have a greater risk of receiving PIPs in the primary care setting, but it remains unclear whether other factors are related. Barriers to medicines optimisation among primary care older adults comprise multiple factors, and evidence-based and targeted interventions are needed to address these difficulties.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020216258.

Pharmacist-led medicines optimisation clinic for implantable cardiac device patients

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background/Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) enhance detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), providing a comprehensive measure of AF burden. Patients with device-detected AF are usually referred for anticoagulation to their local anticoagulation clinic or General Practitioner (GP), which often delays time to initiation, potentially increasing the risk of stroke. In addition, AF is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Optimising blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle choices can significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and associated mortality in these patients. Purpose To develop and evaluate an innovative pathway to allow Specialist Cardiac Pharmacists to promptly assess and initiate anticoagulation in patients with device-detected AF, and additionally address risk factors for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Methods As part of a quality improvement initiative, a pathway was developed where patients with AF identified on CIED who require anticoagulation are referred for assessment and management to a pharmacist-led optimisation clinic. Specialist Cardiac Pharmacists contact patients within 5 days of referral to discuss and initiate or optimise treatment for AF, blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle choices. Patients deemed inappropriate for anticoagulation were referred back to the medical team for further assessment. All patients received a follow-up telephone consultation at 4-6 weeks to assess tolerability, adherence and response to treatment. Results Between September 2020 and February 2021, 22 patients were referred to the optimisation clinic. Mean age was 74.32 +/- 12.34 years and 77% were men. Mean CHA2DS2VASc was 3.4 +/- 0.8 and mean HASBLED was 1.2 +/- 0.6. The average time from referral to anticoagulation was 3 days compared to 4 weeks prior to implementation of the pathway. All patients were assessed and appropriately anticoagulated, whereas approximately 15% of patients were still not anticoagulated at 3 months prior to implementation of the pathway despite referral to their local clinic. All patients had their blood pressure and cholesterol reviewed, which were optimised in 23% and 41% of patients respectively. All patients confirmed adherence and suffered no adverse effects on follow-up. Conclusion(s): We report the safe and successful implementation of a pharmacist-led medicines optimisation clinic. This has significantly reduced time to anticoagulation without compromising safety, as well as assuring all patients are appropriately anticoagulated. In addition, over half of patients required blood pressure and/or cholesterol optimisation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, a service not previously provided for this cohort of patients.