Utilising a 'Community of Practice' to support pharmacists to work in residential aged care: protocol for a longitudinal evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: A Community of Practice is briefly defined as a group of people with a shared interest in a given area of practice who work collaboratively to grow collective knowledge. Communities of Practice have been used to facilitate knowledge exchange and improve evidence-based practice. Knowledge translation within the residential aged care sector is lacking, with barriers such as inadequate staffing and knowledge gaps commonly cited. In Australia, a Federal inquiry into residential aged care practices led to a recommendation to embed pharmacists within residential aged care facilities. Onsite practice in aged care is a new role for pharmacists in Australia. Thus, support is needed to enable pharmacists to practice in this role.The primary aim is to evaluate the processes and outcomes of a Community of Practice designed to support pharmacists to work in aged care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A longitudinal, single-group, pretest-post-test design in which the intervention is a Community of Practice. The Community of Practice will be established and made available for 3 years to all Australian pharmacists interested in, new to or established in aged care roles. The Community of Practice will be hosted on online discussion platforms, with additional virtual meetings and annual symposia. The following data will be collected from all members of the Community of Practice: self-evaluation of the processes and outcomes of the Community of Practice (via the CoPeval scale) and confidence in evidence-based practice (EPIC scale), collected via online questionnaires annually; and discussion platform usage statistics and discussion transcripts. A subset of members will be invited to participate in annual semi-structured individual interviews.Data from the online questionnaire will be analysed descriptively. Discussion transcripts will be analysed using topic modelling and content analysis to identify the common topics discussed and their frequencies. Qualitative data from individual interviews will be thematically analysed to explore perceptions and experiences with the intervention for information/knowledge exchange, impact on practice, and sharing/promoting/implementing evidence-based practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia's Human Ethics Committee (2023/ET000000). No personal information will be included in any publications and reports to funding bodies.Findings will be disseminated to all members of the Community of Practice, professional organisations, social and mass media, peer-review journals, research and professional conferences and annual reports to the funding body.

What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

Medicines Regimens Charted for Older People Living in Residential Aged Care: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study Describing the Number of Medicines, Regimen Complexity, High-Risk Prescribing, and Potential Underprescribing.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore medicines regimens charted for older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study using routinely collected data sampled in a cross-sectional manner at 11 time points (day of admission, then at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days, and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post admission). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The cohort is set in 34 RACFs managed by a single Australasian provider. People aged ≥65 years admitted to permanent care between January 1, 2017, and October 1, 2021, with medicines charted on the date of admission. METHODS: Medicines charted were evaluated for potentially suboptimal prescribing including number of medicines, high-risk prescribing (eg, potentially inappropriate medicines, anticholinergic burden), and potential underprescribing. RESULTS: The 3802 residents in the final cohort had a mean age of 84.9 ± 7.2 years at admission. At least 1 example of suboptimal prescribing was identified in 3479 (92%) residents at admission increasing to 1410 (97%) at 24 months. The number of medicines charted for each resident increased over time from 6.0 ± 3.8 regular and 2.8 ± 2.7 as required medicines at admission to 8.9 ± 4.1 regular and 8.1 ± 3.7 as required medicines at 24 months. Anticholinergic drug burden increased from 1.6 ± 2.4 at admission to 3.0 ± 2.8 at 24 months. Half the residents (2173; 57%) used at least 1 potentially inappropriate medicine at admission, which rose to nearly three-quarters (1060; 73%) at 24 months admission. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The total number of medicines charted for older adults living in RACFs increases with length of stay, with charted as required medicines nearly tripling. Effective interventions to optimize medicines use in this vulnerable population are required.

Comparative Risk of Gout Flares When Initiating or Escalating Various Urate-Lowering Therapy: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically examined comparative gout flare risk after initiation or escalation of different urate-lowering therapies (ULTs), comparative flare risk with and without concomitant flare prophylaxis, adverse event rates associated with flare prophylaxis, and optimal duration of flare prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases and clinical trial registries from inception to November 2021 for trials investigating adults with gout initiating or escalating ULT. We performed random effects network meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) between treatments. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We identified 3,775 records, of which 29 publications (27 trials) were included. When compared to placebo plus prophylaxis, the RR of flares ranged from 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.33) for febuxostat 40 mg plus prophylaxis to RR 2.65 [95% CI 1.58-4.45] for febuxostat 80 mg plus lesinurad 400 mg plus prophylaxis. Compared to ULT alone, the RR of flares was lower for ULT plus rilonacept 160 mg (RR 0.35 [95% CI 0.25-0.50]), ULT plus rilonacept 80 mg (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.31-0.60]) and ULT plus colchicine (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.35-0.72]). There was limited evidence for other flare prophylaxis and on prophylaxis harms and optimal duration. Primarily because of missing outcome data and bias in the selection of reported results, 71.4% and 63.4% of studies were assessed as high risk of bias for flares and adverse events, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RR of flares when introducing ULT varies depending on ULT drug and dosing strategies. There were limited data on ULT escalation. Flare prophylaxis with colchicine and rilonacept reduces flare incidence. More research is required on the harms and optimal duration of prophylaxis.

The Drug Burden Index and Level of Frailty as Determinants of Healthcare Costs in a Cohort of Older Frail Adults in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common in older people and is associated with increased use of healthcare services and ongoing use of multiple medications. This study provides insights into the healthcare cost structure of a frail group of older adults in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Furthermore, we investigated the relationship between participants' anticholinergic and sedative medication burden and their total healthcare costs to explore the viability of deprescribing interventions within this cohort. METHODS: Healthcare cost analysis was conducted using data collected during a randomized controlled trial within a frail, older cohort. The collected information included participant demographics, medications used, frailty, cost of service use of aged residential care and outpatient hospital services, hospital admissions, and dispensed medications. RESULTS: Data from 338 study participants recruited between 25 September 2018 and 30 October 2020 with a mean age of 80 years were analyzed. The total cost of healthcare per participant ranged from New Zealand $15 (US dollar $10) to New Zealand $270 681 (US dollar $175 943) over 6 months postrecruitment into the study. Four individuals accounted for 26% of this cohort's total healthcare cost. We found frailty to be associated with increased healthcare costs, whereas the drug burden was only associated with increased pharmaceutical costs, not overall healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: With no relationship found between a patient's anticholinergic and sedative medication burden and their total healthcare costs, more research is required to understand how and where to unlock healthcare cost savings within frail, older populations.

Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs to Reduce Polypharmacy in Frail Older Adults Living in the Community: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with poor outcomes in older adults. Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications may improve health outcomes for frail older adults. Our pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention was a pragmatic 2-arm randomized controlled trial stratified by frailty. We compared usual care (control) with the intervention of pharmacists providing deprescribing recommendations to general practitioners. METHODS: Community-based older adults (≥65 years) from 2 New Zealand district health boards were recruited following a standardized interRAI needs assessment. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) was used to quantify the use of sedative and anticholinergic medications for each participant. The trial was stratified into low, medium, and high-frailty. We hypothesized that the intervention would increase the proportion of participants with a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5 within 6 months. RESULTS: Of 363 participants, 21 (12.7%) in the control group and 21 (12.2%) in the intervention group had a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5. The difference in the proportion of -0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.9% to 7.0%) provided no evidence of efficacy for the intervention. Similarly, there was no evidence to suggest the effectiveness of this intervention for participants of any frailty level. CONCLUSION: Our pharmacist-led medication review of frail older participants did not reduce the anticholinergic/sedative load within 6 months. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown measures required modification of the intervention. Subgroup analyses pre- and post-lockdown showed no impact on outcomes. Reviewing this and other deprescribing trials through the lens of implementation science may aid an understanding of the contextual determinants preventing or enabling successful deprescribing implementation strategies.

Consumer and Healthcare Professional Led Priority Setting for Quality Use of Medicines in People with Dementia: Gathering Unanswered Research Questions.

BACKGROUND: Historically, research questions have been posed by the pharmaceutical industry or researchers, with little involvement of consumers and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To determine what questions about medicine use are important to people living with dementia and their care team and whether they have been previously answered by research. METHODS: The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was followed. A national Australian qualitative survey on medicine use in people living with dementia was conducted with consumers (people living with dementia and their carers including family, and friends) and healthcare professionals. Survey findings were supplemented with key informant interviews and relevant published documents (identified by the research team). Conventional content analysis was used to generate summary questions. Finally, evidence checking was conducted to determine if the summary questions were 'unanswered'. RESULTS: A total of 545 questions were submitted by 228 survey participants (151 consumers and 77 healthcare professionals). Eight interviews were conducted with key informants and four relevant published documents were identified and reviewed. Overall, analysis resulted in 68 research questions, grouped into 13 themes. Themes with the greatest number of questions were related to co-morbidities, adverse drug reactions, treatment of dementia, and polypharmacy. Evidence checking resulted in 67 unanswered questions. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of unanswered research questions were identified. Addressing unanswered research questions identified by consumers and healthcare professionals through this process will ensure that areas of priority are targeted in future research to achieve optimal health outcomes through quality use of medicines.

Considerations for systematic reviews of quantitative surveys: Learnings from a systematic review of the Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire.

This commentary looks at the process of conducting a systematic review of surveys and validated questionnaires. Surveys and other questionnaire style tools are often used in the field of social and administrative pharmacy, to capture beliefs, attitudes and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals (including pharmacists). Currently, there is little guidance available on how to conduct a systematic review of these types of studies. Considerations related to the process of a systematic review are highlighted, including identification of articles, data extraction, assessing quality of articles and synthesis and analysis of data.

Consumer Attitudes Towards Deprescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Harmful and/or unnecessary medication use in older adults is common. This indicates deprescribing (supervised withdrawal of inappropriate medicines) is not happening as often as it should. This study aimed to synthesize the results of the Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (PATD) questionnaire (and revised versions). METHODS: Databases were searched from January 2013 to March 2020. Google Scholar was used for citation searching of the development and validation manuscripts to identify original research using the validated PATD, revised PATD (older adult and caregiver versions), and the version for people with cognitive impairment (rPATDcog). Two authors extracted data independently. A meta-analysis of proportions (random-effects model) was conducted with subgroup meta-analyses for setting and population. The primary outcome was the question: "If my doctor said it was possible, I would be willing to stop one or more of my medicines." Secondary outcomes were associations between participant characteristics and primary outcome and other (r)PATD results. RESULTS: We included 46 articles describing 40 studies (n = 10,816 participants). The meta-analysis found the proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with this statement was 84% (95% CI 81%-88%) and 80% (95% CI 74%-86%) in patients and caregivers, respectively, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 95% and 77%). CONCLUSION: Consumers reported willingness to have a medication deprescribed although results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity. The findings from this study moves toward understanding attitudes toward deprescribing, which could increase the discussion and uptake of deprescribing recommendations in clinical practice.

Leveraging implementation science to increase the translation of deprescribing evidence into practice.

Implementation science may address some of the limitations that impede the translation of deprescribing recommendations into practice and policy. Application of principles and standard terminologies from implementation science could improve understanding and interpretation of deprescribing research findings. As such, in this commentary we propose three main avenues to help achieve this. These include: The application of these concepts derived from implementation science could help inform future deprescribing needs for clinicians and researchers. Ultimately, this could help ensure the quality use of medications and examination of meaningful outcomes in deprescribing studies. This could result in more consistent and widespread translation of deprescribing evidence into practice and policy across various healthcare settings.

Barriers and enablers of older adults initiating a deprescribing conversation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' perceptions and identify barriers and enablers to initiating a conversation about stopping medication(s) with their healthcare provider. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 3) and in-depth, face-to-face, individual interviews (n = 6) using an interview guide. Older adults aged ≥65 years in a retirement community who were taking ≥5 medications were recruited. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both a deductive analysis, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, and an inductive analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Five themes and fourteen sub-themes were identified. Theme 1, 'older adult-related barriers', discusses limited or varying self-efficacy, past unsuccessful deprescribing experiences and limited familiarity with medications/deprescribing. Theme 2, 'provider-related barriers', discusses trust, short office visits, lack of communication and multiple providers. Theme 3, 'environmental/social-related barriers', involves limited availability of resources and access to telehealth/internet. The remaining themes (Themes 4-5) identified enablers including strategies to promote older adults' self-efficacy and improved healthcare communication. CONCLUSION: Consumer-centric tools could improve older adults' self-efficacy to initiate deprescribing conversations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Removing barriers and implementing enablers may empower older adults to initiate deprescribing conversations with providers to take fewer medications. Ultimately, this could be a catalyst for increased translation of deprescribing in practice.

Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative drugs in a cohort of frail older people living in the community.

BACKGROUND: Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients. STUDY POPULATION: Community-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly. INTERVENTION: New Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death. DATA COLLECTION POINTS: Data will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Medication Use Quality and Safety in Older Adults: 2019 Update.

Improving the quality of medication use and medication safety are important priorities for prescribers who care for older adults. The objective of this article was to identify four exemplary articles with this focus in 2019. We selected high-quality studies that moved the field of research forward and were not merely replication studies. The chosen articles cover domains related to aspects of suboptimal prescribing and medication safety. The first study used a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries to examine the continuation of medications with limited benefit in patients admitted for cancer and non-cancer diagnoses in hospice (domain: potentially inappropriate medications). The second study, a retrospective cohort study of older adults in Ontario, Canada, assessed the association between prescribing oral anticoagulants in an emergency department relative to not prescribing anticoagulants in the emergency department and their persistence at 6 months (domain: underuse of medications). The third study, a cluster randomized trial in Quebec, Canada, evaluated the effect of conducting electronic medication reconciliation on several outcomes including adverse drug events and medication discrepancies (domain: medication safety). Lastly, the fourth study, a retrospective study using national inpatient and outpatient Veteran Health Administration combined with clinical and Medicare Claims data, examined the effects of intensification of antihypertensive medications on older adults' likelihood for hospital re-admission and other important clinical outcomes (domain: medication safety). Collectively, this review succinctly highlights pertinent topics related to promoting safe use of medications and promotes awareness of optimizing older adults' medication regimens.

Difficulty with Taking Medications Is Associated with Future Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.

BACKGROUND: Medication management requires complex cognitive functioning, and therefore, difficulty taking medications might be an early sign of cognitive impairment and could be a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Accordingly, people with difficulty taking medications may benefit from more detailed cognitive screening, potentially aiding in the diagnosis of ADRD, which is underdiagnosed. We are unaware of evidence on medication management difficulties that precede a real-world ADRD diagnosis in the USA. OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between difficulty taking medications and subsequent real-world ADRD diagnoses. DESIGN: Case-control study, using Health and Retirement Study (HRS) survey data linked to Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1461 HRS respondents with an ADRD diagnosis observed from 1993 to 2012 (cases), matched by year of birth, wave of HRS entry, and sex to 3771 controls with no ADRD diagnosis. MAIN MEASURES: We examined the association between diagnosis of ADRD and self-reported difficulty taking medications in the preceding years (1-2 and 3-4 years prior to case definition). Control individuals were assigned the index date from their matched case. Conditional logistic regressions adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and comorbidities. KEY RESULTS: Compared with matched controls, cases had higher prevalence of difficulty taking medications 1-2 years prior to diagnosis (11.0% versus 2.3%), and 3-4 years prior to diagnosis (5.8% versus 2.3%). Adjusted analyses showed that compared with individuals without ADRD, those with an ADRD diagnosis had more than four times higher odds of difficulty taking medications 1-2 years prior (OR = 4.56 (CI 3.30-6.31)), and more than two times higher odds of difficulty taking medications 3-4 years prior (OR = 2.41 (CI 1.61-3.59)). CONCLUSIONS: Odds of medication difficulty 1-2 years prior were more than four times greater for individuals with ADRD diagnoses compared with those without ADRD. Medication management difficulties may prompt further cognitive screening, potentially aiding in earlier recognition of ADRD.

Alterations in drug disposition in older adults: a focus on geriatric syndromes.

INTRODUCTION: Age-associated physiological changes can alter the disposition of drugs, however, pathophysiological changes associated with geriatric syndromes in older adults may lead to even greater heterogeneity in pharmacokinetics. Geriatric syndromes are common health problems in older adults which have multifactorial causes and do not fit into distinct organ-based disease categories. With older adults being the greatest users of medications, understanding both age- and geriatric syndrome-related changes is important clinically to ensure safe and effective medication use. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an overview of current evidence regarding pharmacokinetic alterations that occur with aging and in common geriatric syndromes, including frailty, sarcopenia, dementia, polypharmacy and enteral feeding. The evidence is presented according to the four primary pharmacokinetic processes (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion). EXPERT OPINION: There is some evidence to inform our understanding of the impact of chronological aging and various geriatric syndromes on drug disposition. However, many areas require more research, including drug induced inhibition and induction of cytochrome P450 enzymes and the clinical utility of emerging methods for estimating renal function. There is a need to develop tools to predict alterations in drug disposition in subgroups of older adults, particularly where the currently available clinical information is sparse.

Medication Use Quality and Safety in Older Adults: 2018 Update.

Improving the quality of medication use and medication safety is an important priority for prescribers who care for older adults. The objective of this article was to identify key articles from 2018 that address these issues. In addition, we selected four of these articles to annotate, critique, and discuss their broader implications for clinical practice. The first study highlights a cluster-randomized trial that utilized a pharmacist-led education-based intervention delivered to both patients and physicians to deprescribe four types of inappropriate medications (sedative-hypnotics, first-generation antihistamines, selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and glyburide). The second study, a nested case-control study using data from within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, examined the association between anticholinergic exposure, overall and by anticholinergic medication class, and dementia risk in 40 770 older adults. The third study, a longitudinal cohort study of 1028 Swedish older adults, examined the association between antihypertensive medications and incident dementia. The last study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that investigated the effect of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) for primary prevention on cardiovascular events and major hemorrhage in 19 144 community-dwelling older adults. Collectively, this current article provides insight into the pertinent topics of medication use quality and safety in older adults and helps raise awareness about optimal prescribing in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2458-2462, 2019.

DEFEAT-polypharmacy: deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines feasibility trial in residential aged care facilities.

Background Prolonged use of anticholinergic and sedative medicines is correlated with worsening cognition and physical function decline. Deprescribing is a proposed intervention that can help to minimise polypharmacy whilst potentially improving several health outcomes in older people. Objective This study aimed to examine the feasibility of implementing a deprescribing intervention that utilises a patient-centred pharmacist-led intervention model; in order to address major deprescribing challenges such as general practitioner time constraints and lack of accessible deprescribing guidelines and processes. Setting Three residential care facilities. Methods The intervention involved a New Zealand registered pharmacist utilising peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines to recommend targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medicines to GPs. Main outcome measure The change in the participants' Drug Burden Index (DBI) total and DBI 'as required' (PRN) was assessed 3 and 6 months after implementing the deprescribing intervention. Results Seventy percent of potential participants were recruited for the study (n = 46), and 72% of deprescribing recommendations suggested by the pharmacist were implemented by General Pratitioners (p = 0.01; Fisher's exact test). Ninety-six percent of the residents agreed to the deprescribing recommendations, emphasising the importance of patient centred approach. Deprescribing resulted in a significant reduction in participants' DBI scores by 0.34, number of falls and adverse drug reactions, 6 months post deprescribing. Moreover, participants reported lower depression scores and scored lower frailty scores 6 months after deprescribing. However, cognition did not improve; nor did participants' reported quality of life. Conclusion This patient-centred deprescribing approach, demonstrated a high uptake of deprescribing recommendations and success rate. After 6 months, significant benefits were noted across a range of important health measures including mood, frailty, falls and reduced adverse reactions. This further supports deprescribing as a possible imperative to improve health outcomes in older adults.