What influences GPs' use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs' experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: 'doing what is best for the individual', 'doctors examine', and 'GPs as pragmatists'. CONCLUSION: GPs' reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors.

Mindfulness for people with chronic pain: Factors affecting engagement and suggestions for programme optimisation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a common, multifactorial condition and pharmacological treatments have limited benefits. Mindfulness is a holistic approach that might be of value in the management of chronic pain. However, attrition rates from mindfulness-based interventions are high and factors affecting engagement are unknown. The aim of this study was to inform the design of a mindfulness programme that would be accessible and acceptable for people with chronic pain. METHODS: Interpretative phenomenological analysis of interview data from people with chronic pain who had taken part in an 8-week mindfulness programme based on mindfulness-based stress reduction revealed factors affecting engagement with and suggestions for tailoring the programme. Factors were grouped into physical, psychological and social domains. Further suggestions for tailoring the programme to address these factors were generated through a nominal group of healthcare professionals and a focus group with service users who had chronic pain. FINDINGS: Physical factors included disability and discomfort with some practices; psychological factors included expectations of the mindfulness programme and understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain; and social factors included loneliness and support from others. The proposed modifications to the mindfulness programme supported by healthcare professionals and/or service users to address these are described in this paper. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study involved public contributions at a number of stages. The University of Aberdeen Division of Applied Health Sciences Service User Group (who were members of the public with chronic pain) was involved in the design of the study. Patients with chronic pain recruited from general medical practice who took part in the mindfulness programme were interviewed on their experience of the programme. Patients with chronic pain who attended the mindfulness programme, and healthcare professionals with expertise in chronic pain and/or mindfulness, attended meetings to design a tailored mindfulness programme for people with chronic pain.

Enhancing deprescribing: A qualitative understanding of the complexities of pharmacist-led deprescribing in care homes.

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward.

Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS).

BACKGROUND: Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation. METHOD: Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework. RESULTS: PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number  ISRCTN 17847169 ).

Progression from external pilot to definitive randomised controlled trial: a methodological review of progression criteria reporting.

OBJECTIVES: Prespecified progression criteria can inform the decision to progress from an external randomised pilot trial to a definitive randomised controlled trial. We assessed the characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial protocols and results publications, including whether progression criteria were specified a priori and mentioned in prepublication peer reviewer reports. STUDY DESIGN: Methodological review. METHODS: We searched four journals through PubMed: British Medical Journal Open, Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Trials and Public Library of Science One. Eligible publications reported external randomised pilot trial protocols or results, were published between January 2018 and December 2019 and reported progression criteria. We double data extracted 25% of the included publications. Here we report the progression criteria characteristics. RESULTS: We included 160 publications (123 protocols and 37 completed trials). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators contributing to progression criteria. Progression criteria were mostly reported as distinct thresholds (eg, achieving a specific target; 133/160, 83%). Less than a third of the planned and completed pilot trials that included qualitative research reported how these findings would contribute towards progression criteria (34/108, 31%). The publications seldom stated who established the progression criteria (12/160, 7.5%) or provided rationale or justification for progression criteria (44/160, 28%). Most completed pilot trials reported the intention to proceed to a definitive trial (30/37, 81%), but less than half strictly met all of their progression criteria (17/37, 46%). Prepublication peer reviewer reports were available for 153/160 publications (96%). Peer reviewer reports for 86/153 (56%) publications mentioned progression criteria, with peer reviewers of 35 publications commenting that progression criteria appeared not to be specified. CONCLUSIONS: Many external randomised pilot trial publications did not adequately report or propose prespecified progression criteria to inform whether to proceed to a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

"I'm empowered to look after myself" - Mindfulness as a way to manage chronic pain: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of participant experiences in Scotland.

BACKGROUND AND PRIMARY AIM: Chronic pain is a common problem that can impact on psychological and social wellbeing and activity levels. Despite pharmacological treatments, there is often a lack of improvement in physical and emotional functioning and health-related quality of life. Mindfulness meditation has become an increasingly popular self-management technique. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of patients with chronic pain who took part in a mindfulness programme. METHODS: A mixed-methods feasibility study was carried out. Participants were aged 18 years or over with non-malignant chronic pain recruited from general medical practices in Fort William, Scotland. In 2013 participants undertook an eight-week mindfulness programme based on Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and were interviewed immediately post-programme and at eight-months' post-programme. Analysis of qualitative data involved Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). FINDINGS: Thirty-four patients consented to take part in the study; twenty-four took part in the programme (14 attended four or more sessions, 10 attended one to three). Twenty-three were interviewed. Participant experiences of the programme were themed under: factors affecting experience (influence of earlier life events; the process of taking part in, and of relating to, the programme); and effects of the programme (impact on emotions, mental health, adverse events and a process of change). The process of change, resulting after better understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain, involved learning to 'listen to the body', gaining a sense of community, learning to accept pain, and approaching life with more self-care, awareness, appreciation and empowerment. CONCLUSION: Participants reported a variety of experiences. For some, these included undergoing a process of change which may have supported them in living with their painful condition. This contributes to our understanding of how mindfulness could benefit people with chronic pain.

Development and feasibility testing of an evidence-based training programme for pharmacist independent prescribers responsible for the medicines-related activities within care homes.

INTRODUCTION: The UK pharmacists with independent prescribing rights (pharmacist independent prescribers [PIPs]) are authorised to prescribe within their areas of competence. To enable PIPs to provide pharmaceutical care to residents in care homes and assume responsibility for medicines management, a process for development and assessment of competence is required. The aim of this research was to develop a training and accreditation process (training programme) to enable PIPs to operate safely and effectively within care homes. METHODS: Located in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland across four sites and based on a systematic review, it consisted of four phases: (1) initial stakeholder engagement, (2) uni-professional focus groups and interviews, (3) expert panel consensus and (4) feasibility testing. Four PIPs were trained each to provide pharmaceutical care to 10 care home residents. An expert panel synthesised the evidence at each stage to develop each iteration of the training programme. Content analysis was used throughout. RESULTS: Differences in baseline knowledge of PIPs required inclusion of a Personal Development Framework and the provision of a mentor. Face-to-face training focussed on managing medicines for a complex older person, minimising prescribing costs and supporting people without capacity. Provision of time to understand local context and develop relationships with care homes and general practitioners was identified as a central requirement. PIPs were assessed for competency via viva. Feasibility testing demonstrated that the derived training programme was acceptable, practical and effective. DISCUSSION: The model seemed to work, but due to small numbers, larger-scale testing of the training programme is now required.

Transparency of informed consent in pilot and feasibility studies is inadequate: a single-center quality assurance study.

BACKGROUND: Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies. METHODS: Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms "pilot" or "feasibility" in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study. CONCLUSION: The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing. METHODS: Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app "Can-Pain". Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual. Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Qualitative research: ClinicalTrials.gov , reference NCT02341846 Feasibility study: NIHR CPMS database ID 34172.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Assessing the transparency of informed consent in feasibility and pilot studies: a single-centre quality assurance study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pilot/feasibility studies assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study. Although researchers ought to communicate the feasibility objectives to their participants, many research ethics guidelines do not comment on how informed consent applies to pilot studies. It is unclear whether researchers and research ethics boards clearly communicate the purpose of pilot studies to participants consenting.The primary objective of this study is to assess whether pilot/feasibility studies submitted for ethics approval to a research ethics board transparently communicate the purpose of the study to participants through their informed consent practice. A highly transparent consent practice entails the consent documents communicate: (1) the term 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in the title; (2) the definition of a pilot/feasibility study; (3) the primary objectives of the study are to assess feasibility; (4) the specific feasibility objectives; and (5) the criteria for the study to successfully lead to the main study. The secondary objectives are to assess whether there is a difference between submitted and revised versions of the consent documents (revisions are made to obtain research ethics approval), to determine factors associated with transparent consent practices and to assess the consistency with which pilot and feasibility studies assess feasibility outcomes as their primary objectives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective review of informed consent information for pilot/feasibility studies submitted to the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. We will look at submitted and revised consent documents for pilot/feasibility studies submitted over a 14-year period. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise data, reporting results as percentages with 95% CIs, and conduct logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with transparent consent practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, and the results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

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.

Interventions to Reduce Anticholinergic Burden in Adults Aged 65 and Older: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Older age is associated with multimorbidity and polypharmacy with high anticholinergic burden (ACB). High ACB is linked to adverse events such as poor physical functioning, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and falls. Interventions are needed to reduce this burden. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: The aim was to systematically review the literature to identify and describe studies of clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ACB in adults (≥65 years) on polypharmacy regimes, compared with usual care. The objective was to answer the following questions: What are the contents of the interventions? Were these interventions clinically effective? Were these interventions cost effective?. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in adults aged 65 and older in any clinical setting. METHODS: Eligible papers reported primary or secondary research describing any type of intervention including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, or nonrandomized pre-post intervention studies (PPIs) published in English from January 2010 to February 2019. Databases searched included CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). RESULTS: The search yielded 5862 records. Eight studies (4 RCTs, 4 PPIs) conducted in hospital (4), community (2), nursing homes (1), and retirement villages (1) met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacists, either individually or as part of a team, provided the intervention in the majority of studies (6/8). Most (7/8) involved individual patient medication review followed by feedback to the prescriber. Two of the 4 RCTs and all non-RCTs reported a decrease in ACB following the intervention. No study reported cost outcome. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists may be well placed to implement an ACB reduction intervention. This is the first systematic review of interventions to reduce ACB in older adults, and it highlights the need for development and testing of high-quality pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trials in community and specific patient populations at high risk of harm from ACB. [PROSPERO registration: CRD42018089764].