Assessing deprescribing tools for implementation in care homes: A qualitative study of the views of care home staff.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents often experience polypharmacy (defined as taking five or more regular medicines). Therefore, we need to ensure that residents only take the medications that are appropriate or provide value (also known as medicines optimisation). To achieve this, deprescribing, or the reduction or stopping of prescription medicines that may no longer be providing benefit, can help manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes. Various tools, guides, and approaches have been developed to help support health professionals to deprescribe in regular practice. Little evaluation of these tools has been conducted and no work has been done in the care home setting. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to assess distinct types of deprescribing tools for acceptability, feasibility, and suitability for the care home setting. METHODS: Cognitive (think-aloud) interviews with care home staff in England were conducted (from December 2021 to June 2022) to assess five different deprescribing tools. The tools included a general deprescribing guidance, a generic (non-drug specific) deprescribing framework, a drug-specific deprescribing guideline/guide, a tool for identifying potentially inappropriate medications, and an electronic clinical decision support tool. Participants were recruited via their participation in another deprescribing study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Eight care home staff from 7 different care homes were interviewed. The five deprescribing tools were reviewed and assessed as not acceptable, feasible, or suitable for the care home setting. All would require significant modifications for use in the care home setting (e.g., language, design, and its function or use with different stakeholders). CONCLUSIONS: As none of the tools were deemed acceptable, feasible, and suitable, future work is warranted to develop and tailor deprescribing tools for the care home setting, considering its specific context and users. Deprescribing implemented safely and successfully in care homes can benefit residents and the wider health economy.

Determinants of implementing deprescribing for older adults in English care homes: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the factors that may help or hinder deprescribing practice for older people within care homes. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews using framework analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). SETTING: Participants were recruited from two care home provider organisations (a smaller independently owned organisation and a large organisation) in England. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 23 care home staff, 8 residents, 4 family members and 1 general practitioner were associated with 15 care homes. RESULTS: Participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of implementing deprescribing within care homes. Major themes of (1) deprescribing as a complex process and (2) internal and external contextual factors influencing deprescribing practice (such as beliefs, abilities and relationships) were interrelated and spanned several CFIR constructs and domains. The quality of local relationships with and support from healthcare professionals were considered more crucial factors than the type of care home management structure. CONCLUSIONS: Several influencing social and contextual factors need to be considered for implementing deprescribing for older adults in care homes. Additional training, tools, support and opportunities need to be made available to care home staff, so they can feel confident and able to question or raise concerns about medicines with prescribers. Further work is warranted to design and adopt a deprescribing approach which addresses these determinants to ensure successful implementation.

Frailty for neurologists: a practical guide.

Neurologists increasingly care for people with significant frailty in both clinic and ward settings. Such care demands a balanced approach to investigation, diagnosis and treatment, as well-intentioned actions can produce adverse effects. This article presents a practical approach to the identification and management of patients with frailty and neurological conditions. We address medicines optimisation, common causes of deterioration in those with frailty, communication, decisions about intensity of treatment, and shared decision-making including ethical aspects of withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, with a view to improving the experience both of people living with frailty and of the teams who care for them.

Quality of life after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients over the age of 80 years.

OBJECTIVES: Success of in-hospital resuscitation decreases with age; however, national data show that 11.3% of patients over 80 years survive to discharge. There are few published qualitative data about the quality of life for these patients postsuccessful resuscitation. We aimed to investigate postresuscitation quality of life in patients over the age of 80 through a series of case studies. METHODS: All patients over the age of 80 years, who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at our district general hospital in 2015-2016, were included. Success of resuscitation, survival at day 1 and to discharge were recorded. For patients who survived to 1 day and beyond, case reports were written to create individual patient stories. RESULTS: 47 patients over the age of 80 years received CPR at Musgrove Park Hospital over a 2-year period. Five (10.6%) survived to discharge. Of those surviving to discharge, two had substantial functional decline, requiring discharge to nursing homes having previously been independent. Of the five families/patients who commented on their experience, only one expressed a positive view. When discussed, the majority of patients/families opted for a Do Not Attempt CPR. CONCLUSION: Our results have shown that there is a risk of substantial functional decline associated with successful CPR in those patients over the age of 80 years. The majority of patients and relatives contacted after successful resuscitation expressed a negative view of the experience. Our study highlights the importance of having early informed discussions with patients and families about CPR in order to avoid detrimental outcomes and ensure patient wishes are correctly represented.

Effect of right ventricular pacing lead site on left ventricular function in patients with high-grade atrioventricular block: results of the Protect-Pace study.

AIM: Chronic right ventricle (RV) apical (RVA) pacing is standard treatment for an atrioventricular (AV) block but may be deleterious to left ventricle (LV) systolic function. Previous clinical studies of non-apical pacing have produced conflicting results. The aim of this randomized, prospective, international, multicentre trial was to compare change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) between right ventricular apical and high septal (RVHS) pacing over a 2-year study period. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 240 patients (age 74 ± 11 years, 67% male) with a high-grade AV block requiring >90% ventricular pacing and preserved baseline LVEF >50%, to receive pacing at the RVA (n = 120) or RVHS (n = 120). At 2 years, LVEF decreased in both the RVA (57 ± 9 to 55 ± 9%, P = 0.047) and the RVHS groups (56 ± 10 to 54 ± 10%, P = 0.0003). However, there was no significant difference in intra-patient change in LVEF between confirmed RVA (n = 85) and RVHS (n = 83) lead position (P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in heart failure hospitalization, mortality, the burden of atrial fibrillation, or plasma brain natriutetic peptide levels between the two groups. A significantly greater time was required to place the lead in the RVHS position (70 ± 25 vs. 56 ± 24 min, P < 0.0001) with longer fluoroscopy times (11 ± 7 vs. 5 ± 4 min, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In patients with a high-grade AV block and preserved LV function requiring a high percentage of ventricular pacing, RVHS pacing does not provide a protective effect on left ventricular function over RVA pacing in the first 2 years. PROTECT-PACE: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00461734.