Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of pharmacist independent prescribers in care homes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness, cost effectiveness (to be reported elsewhere), and safety of pharmacy independent prescribers in care homes. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with clusters based on triads of a pharmacist independent prescriber, a general practice, and one to three associated care homes. SETTING: Care homes across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, their associated general practices, and pharmacy independent prescribers, formed into triads. PARTICIPANTS: 49 triads and 882 residents were randomised. Participants were care home residents, aged ≥65 years, taking at least one prescribed drug, recruited to 20 residents/triad. INTERVENTION: Each pharmacy independent prescriber provided pharmaceutical care to approximately 20 residents across one to three care homes, with weekly visits over six months. Pharmacy independent prescribers developed a pharmaceutical care plan for each resident, did medicines reviews/reconciliation, trained staff, and supported with medicines related procedures, deprescribing, and authorisation of prescriptions. Participants in the control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was fall rate/person at six months analysed by intention to treat, adjusted for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D by proxy), Barthel score, Drug Burden Index, hospital admissions, and mortality. Assuming a 21% reduction in falls, 880 residents were needed, allowing for 20% attrition. RESULTS: The average age of participants at study entry was 85 years; 70% were female. 697 falls (1.55 per resident) were recorded in the intervention group and 538 falls (1.26 per resident) in the control group at six months. The fall rate risk ratio for the intervention group compared with the control group was not significant (0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26) after adjustment for all model covariates. Secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups, with exception of the Drug Burden Index, which significantly favoured the intervention. A third (185/566; 32.7%) of pharmacy independent prescriber interventions involved medicines associated with falls. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Change in the primary outcome of falls was not significant. Limiting follow-up to six months combined with a small proportion of interventions predicted to affect falls may explain this. A significant reduction in the Drug Burden Index was realised and would be predicted to yield future clinical benefits for patients. This large trial of an intensive weekly pharmacist intervention with care home residents was also found to be safe and well received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 17847169.

Protocol for the process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care home: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of an independent prescribing pharmacist assuming responsibility for medicines management in care homes compared to usual care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RCT, in line with Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation guidance, to inform interpretation of main trial findings and if the service is found to be effective and efficient, to inform subsequent implementation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe the intervention as delivered in terms of quality, quantity, adaptations and variations across triads and time. 2. To explore the effects of individual intervention components on the primary outcomes. 3. To investigate the mechanisms of impact. 4. To describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components [including pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP) training and care home staff training] from participant [general practitioner (GP), care home, PIP and resident/relative] perspectives. 5. To describe the characteristics of GP, care home, PIP and resident participants to assess reach. 6. To estimate the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised among the intervention healthcare professionals and related practice staff. METHODS: A mix of quantitative (surveys, record reviews) and qualitative (interviews) approaches will be used to collect data on the extent of the delivery of detailed tasks required to implement the new service, to collect data to confirm the mechanism of impact as hypothesised in the logic model, to collect explanatory process and final outcome data, and data on contextual factors which could have facilitated or hindered effective and efficient delivery of the service. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is ongoing and the trial should complete in early 2020. The systematic and comprehensive approach that is being adopted will ensure data is captured on all aspects of the study, and allow a full understanding of the implementation of the service and the RCT findings. With so many interrelated factors involved it is important that a process evaluation is undertaken to enable us to identify which elements of the service were deemed to be effective, explain any differences seen, and identify enablers, barriers and future adaptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17847169. Date registered: 15 December 2017.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care. OBJECTIVES: To perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial. METHODS: This protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3 months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017.

The Care Home Independent Prescribing Pharmacist Study (CHIPPS)-a non-randomised feasibility study of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Residents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification. METHODS: Mixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Across the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload. CONCLUSION: Implementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

Deprescribing: Fashion Accessory or Fig Leaf?

Deprescribing is the general practice fashion accessory that no prescriber can be seen without. However, it is in danger of becoming a "fig leaf" substitute for the entire medication review suite.

The scale of repeat prescribing--time for an update.

BACKGROUND: The NHS spends billions of pounds annually on repeat prescriptions in primary care, but data on their extent and use is out of date. Understanding the scale of repeat prescribing and for whom it is prescribed is important for the NHS to plan services and develop policies to improve patient care. METHOD: Anonymous data on prescription numbers and practice population demographics was obtained from GP computer systems in a large urban area.Searches were conducted in November 2011 to identify the numbers of repeat items listed on individuals' repeat lists by sex and age.The proportion of all prescription items issued as repeats was identified by conducting searches on items issued as repeat and acute prescriptions. RESULTS: In the year of study 4,453,225 items were issued of which 3,444,769 (77%) were repeats (mean 13 items per patient/annum) and 1,008,456 (23%) acute prescriptions (mean 3.9 items per patient per annum). The mean number of repeat Items per patient was 1.87 (range 0.45 ages 0-9 years; 7.1 ages 80-89 years). At least one repeat medicine was prescribed to 43% of the population (range 20% for ages 0-9; over 75% for ages 60+). CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of the population receive repeat prescriptions and the proportion increases with age. Whilst the proportion of repeat items to acute items has remained unchanged over the last two decades the number of repeat prescriptions items issued has doubled (from 5.8 to 13.3 items/patient/annum). This has implications for general practice workload, patient convenience, NHS costs and risk.

The recording of drug sensitivities for older people living in care homes.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine the recording of drug sensitivities of elderly care home residents, to describe the nature of sensitivities and to identify and describe discrepancies in the documentation of drug sensitivity status in general practices, pharmacies and care homes. METHODS: A random sample of residents within a purposive sample of care homes (nursing and residential) was selected. A clinical pharmacist inspected the GP medical record, the medicines administration record, and the care home record for each resident to identify drug sensitivities and discrepancies between records and to describe the nature of the recorded sensitivities. RESULTS: The records of 121 residents in 31 care homes were studied. Thirty-one (26%) residents had at least one documented drug sensitivity in one of the sources inspected, with 48 sensitivities in total recorded. There was no description of the nature of the sensitivities recorded in 39/48 (81%) cases. The number of sensitivities recorded on the medicines administration record, care home record and the GP record were 3 (6%), 29 (60%) and 35 (73%), respectively. Only two sensitivities were simultaneously recorded on all three records. CONCLUSIONS: It was of concern that over 90% of drug sensitivities were not recorded on the medicines administration record which is the final checking document when administering medication. The reason for this was that the dispensing pharmacy was responsible for generating the medicines administration record; however, drug sensitivity status is seldom shared between the GP and the dispensing pharmacy. Printing sensitivities on prescriptions would help to resolve this.

Long-term prescribing of antidepressants in the older population: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: High rates of long-term antidepressant prescribing have been identified in the older population. AIMS: To explore the attitudes of older patients and their GPs to taking long-term antidepressant therapy, and their accounts of the influences on long-term antidepressant use. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews. SETTING: One primary care trust in North Bradford. METHOD: Thirty-six patients aged > or =75 years and 10 GPs were interviewed. Patients were sampled to ensure diversity in age, sex, antidepressant type, and home circumstances. RESULTS: Participants perceived significant benefits and expressed little apprehension about taking long-term antidepressants, despite being aware of the psychological and social factors involved in onset and persistence of depression. Barriers to discontinuation were identified following four themes: pessimism about the course and curability of depression; negative expectations and experiences of ageing; medicine discontinuation perceived by patients as a threat to stability; and passive (therapeutic momentum) and active (therapeutic maintenance) decisions to accept the continuing need for medication. CONCLUSION: There is concern at a public health level about high rates of long-term antidepressant prescribing, but no evidence was found of a drive for change either from the patients or the doctors interviewed. Any apprehension was more than balanced by attitudes and behaviours supporting continuation. These findings will need to be incorporated into the planning of interventions aimed at reducing long-term antidepressant prescribing in older people.

Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective?: a narrative review of the literature, focusing on costs and benefits.

The nature, definition and history of medication review of long-term conditions and treatment is discussed. A literature search for studies of medication review of older people in primary care by pharmacists yielded 16 reports of studies in English, and only ten of these were randomized controlled trials. Extracting meaningful conclusions from the data was problematic because of variations in the nature of the review described, the populations studied, the outcome data measured and the evaluation criteria used. There is a dearth of economic measurement and often inadequate descriptions of the interventions performed. Those interventions that were described in detail varied in the skills, training and approach of the pharmacists. Therefore, there was no possibility of aggregating results of studies, and the review conclusions are based on trends and impression rather than meta-analysis. There was no suggestion in any reports that patients were harmed by the interventions, and some consistency in suggesting that falls and hospital admissions might be reduced with modest cost savings, at least in terms of drug costs. No studies reported a benefit in terms of mortality, mental capacity or activities of daily living. The authors conclude that clinical medication review is probably of value and may be cost effective, but propose a large-scale, long-term, multicentre, collaborative clinical trial with carefully chosen (and clearly described) interventions and outcome measures to confirm this.