ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many seriously ill and frail inpatients receive potentially inappropriate or harmful medications and do not receive medications for symptoms of advanced illness. We developed and piloted an interprofessional Medication Rationalization (MERA) approach to deprescribing inappropriate medications and prescribing appropriate comfort medications. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre pilot study of inpatients at risk of 6-month mortality from advanced age or morbidity. The MERA team reviewed the patients' medications and made recommendations on the basis of guidelines. We measured end points for feasibility, acceptability, efficiency and effectiveness. RESULTS: We enrolled 61 of 115 (53%) eligible patients with a mean age of 79.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.7 yr). Patients were taking an average of 11.5 (SD 5.2) medications before admission and had an average of 2.1 symptoms with greater than 6/10 severity on the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The MERA team recommended 263 medication changes, of which 223 (85%) were accepted by both the medical team and the patient. MERA team's recommendations resulted in the discontinuation of 162 medications (mean 3.1 per patient), dose changes for 48 medications (mean 0.9 per patient) and the addition of 13 medications (mean 0.2 per patient). Patients who received the MERA intervention stopped significantly more inappropriate medications than similar non-MERA comparison patients for whom data were collected retrospectively (3.1 v. 0.9 medications per patient, p < 0.01). The MERA approach was highly acceptable to patients and medical team members. INTERPRETATION: The MERA intervention is feasible, acceptable, efficient and possibly effective for changing medication use among seriously ill and frail elderly inpatients. Scalability and effectiveness may be improved through automation and integration with medication reconciliation programs.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to explore health-care professionals', health administrators', and not-for-profit cancer organization representatives' perceptions of lung cancer-related stigma and nihilism and the perceived impacts on funding and patient care. This is a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews, which was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Seventy-four individuals from medical oncology, radiation oncology, thoracic surgery, respirology, pathology, radiology, primary care, palliative care, nursing, pharmacy, social work, genetics, health administration, and not-for-profit cancer organizations participated in this study. Participants described lung cancer-related stigma and nihilism and its negative impact on patients' psychological health, lung cancer funding, and patient care. The feeling of guilt and shame experienced by lung cancer patients as a result of the stigma associated with the disease was described. In terms of lung cancer funding, stigma was described as a reason lung cancer receives significantly less research funding compared to other cancers. In terms of patient care, lung cancer-related nihilism was credited with negatively impacting physician referral patterns with the belief that lung cancer patients were less likely to receive referrals for medical treatment. Health-care professionals, health administrators, and not-for-profit cancer organization representatives described lung cancer-related stigma and nihilism with far-reaching consequences. Further work is needed to increase education and awareness about lung cancer to reduce the stigma and nihilism associated with the disease.
