The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration. METHODS: A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019139679.

A rapid review of measures to support people in isolation or quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of such measures.

This rapid review aimed to identify measures available to support those in isolation or quarantine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, and determine their effectiveness in improving adherence to these recommendations and or reducing transmission. The rapid review consisted of two elements, the first was a review of guidance published by national and international agencies relating to measures to support those in isolation (due to case status) or quarantine (due to close contact status) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Five categories of support measures were identified in the international guidance, they were: Psychological, addiction and safety supports, Essential supplies, Financial aid, Information provision and Enforcement. The second element was a rapid literature review of the effectiveness of measures used to support individuals in isolation or quarantine during any pandemic or epidemic setting, due to respiratory pathogens. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and nonpeer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2021. Two Australian publications met the inclusion criteria, both based on data from a survey undertaken during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The first reported that 55% of households were fully compliant with quarantine recommendations, and that there was increased compliance reported in households that understood what they were meant to do compared with those who reported that they did not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-3.80). The second reported that access to paid sick and or carer's leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.82-5.23). Neither reported on reduction in transmission.

Pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19 disease: A rapid review.

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non-RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be 'very low'. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid-19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed 'very low'. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was 'low'. The designations 'low' and 'very low' regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision-making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19.

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review.

Mass gatherings play an important role in society, but since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, they have generally been restricted in order to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings, and hence inform guidance on the organisation of these events. A rapid review was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase (OVID), Medline (OVID), Google, Web of Science and Europe PMC from 1 January 2020 to 3 June 2021. Of the identified 1,624 citations, 14 articles referring to 11 unique studies were included. This rapid review found evidence from 11 studies (involving approximately 30,482 participants) that implementing a range of measures may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings; however, it is unlikely that this risk can be eliminated entirely. All studies adopted a layered mitigation approach involving multiple measures, which may be more effective than relying on any single measure. The number and intensity of measures implemented varied across studies, with most implementing resource intense measures. Importantly, all included studies were only of 'fair' to 'poor' quality. In conclusion, there is currently limited evidence on the effectiveness of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings. As mass gatherings recommence, continued adoption of known mitigation measures is required to limit the risk of transmission, as well as ongoing research and surveillance to monitor the potential impact of these events on the wider population and healthcare system.

The effectiveness of non-contact thermal screening as a means of identifying cases of Covid-19: a rapid review of the evidence.

The aim of this rapid review is to summarise the evidence on non-contact thermal screening as a method through which to identify cases and reduce the spread of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The rapid review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines, with a systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints undertaken from 1 January 2000 up to 7 October 2020. Eleven studies were included. One observational study and two mathematical modelling studies were conducted in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic; the remaining studies were conducted during the influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (n = 7) or middle east respiratory syndrome (n = 1) pandemics. One systematic review and three rapid reviews were identified and screened for relevant studies. Evidence on the effectiveness of thermal screening contained within this review was limited to points of entry (i.e., airports); thus the applicability to other community settings is uncertain. Thermal screening, implemented as part of a composite of screening measures (self-report of relevant symptoms, contact/travel history), was ineffective in identifying infectious individuals and limiting the spread of disease. Based on limited, low certainty evidence, non-contact thermal screening is ineffective in limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Managing patients with multiple conditions (multimorbidity) is a major challenge for healthcare systems internationally, particularly in older patients. Multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy increase treatment burden and the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and both are complex to manage in primary care. Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into general practice teams could improve medication management for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Building on findings from a non-randomised, uncontrolled General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) feasibility study conducted in Irish primary care, the aim of this study is to conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the GPP study, to assess feasibility, intervention impact, costs and appropriateness of continuing to a definitive cRCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot cRCT will involve 8 general practitioner (GP) practices and 120 patients. Practices will identify and recruit patients aged ≥65 years, who are taking ≥10 regular medications. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control after baseline data collection. Intervention practices will have a pharmacist integrated within their service, working with GPs, patients and practice staff to optimise prescribing and other medication-related activities. Control practices will provide standard GP care. The primary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, uptake of medication reviews and study retention. For the primary clinical outcome, the number of potentially inappropriate prescribing incidences per patient will be collected. Secondary outcomes will include medication-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and data pertaining to the role and impact of the pharmacist on prescribing. In addition, economic and process evaluations will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee and will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN Registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18752158).

The duration of infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence on the duration of infectiousness of individuals in whom SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid is detected. METHODS: A rapid review was undertaken in PubMed, Europe PubMed Central and EMBASE from 1 January 2020 to 26 August 2020. RESULTS: We identified 15 relevant studies, including 13 virus culture and 2 contact tracing studies. For 5 virus culture studies, the last day on which SARS-CoV-2 was isolated occurred within 10 days of symptom onset. For another 5 studies, SARS-CoV-2 was isolated beyond day 10 for approximately 3% of included patients. The remaining 3 virus culture studies included patients with severe or critical disease; SARS-CoV-2 was isolated up to day 32 in one study. Two studies identified immunocompromised patients from whom SARS-CoV-2 was isolated for up to 20 days. Both contact tracing studies, when close contacts were first exposed greater than 5 days after symptom onset in the index case, found no evidence of laboratory-confirmed onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate illness are highly unlikely to be infectious beyond 10 days of symptoms. However, evidence from a limited number of studies indicates that patients with severe-to-critical illness or who are immunocompromised, may shed infectious virus for longer.

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland. DESIGN: Non-randomised pilot study. SETTING: Primary care in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education. OUTCOME MEASURES: Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist. RESULTS: Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) study.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence to suggest that pharmacists integrated into primary care improves patient outcomes and prescribing quality. Despite this growing evidence, there is a lack of detail about the context of the role. OBJECTIVE: To explore the implementation of The General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention (pharmacists integrating into general practice within a non-randomized pilot study in Ireland), the experiences of study participants and lessons for future implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. METHODS: A process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach was conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants (three pharmacists, four GPs, four patients, four practice nurses, four practice managers and four practice administrators) were interviewed. Themes reported include day-to-day practicalities (incorporating location and space, systems and procedures and pharmacists' tasks), relationships and communication (incorporating GP/pharmacist mode of communication, mutual trust and respect, relationship with other practice staff and with patients) and role perception (incorporating shared goals, professional rewards, scope of practice and logistics). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists working within the general practice team have potential to improve prescribing quality. This process evaluation found that a pharmacist joining the general practice team was well accepted by the GP and practice staff and effective interprofessional relationships were described. Patients were less clear of the overall benefits. Important barriers (such as funding, infrastructure and workload) and facilitators (such as teamwork and integration) to the intervention were identified which will be incorporated into a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

Does potentially inappropriate prescribing predict an increased risk of admission to hospital and mortality? A longitudinal study of the 'oldest old'.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is associated with negative health outcomes, including hospitalisation and mortality. Life and Living in Advanced Age: a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) is a longitudinal study of Maori (the indigenous population of New Zealand) and non-Maori octogenarians. Health disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous populations are prevalent internationally and engagement of indigenous populations in health research is necessary to understand and address these disparities. Using LiLACS NZ data, this study reports the association of PIP with hospitalisations and mortality prospectively over 36-months follow-up. METHODS: PIP, from pharmacist applied criteria, was reported as potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The association between PIP and hospitalisations (all-cause, cardiovascular disease-specific and ambulatory-sensitive) and mortality was determined throughout a series of 12-month follow-ups using binary logistic (hospitalisations) and Cox (mortality) regression analysis, reported as odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs), respectively, and the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Full demographic data were obtained for 267 Maori and 404 non-Maori at baseline, 178 Maori and 332 non-Maori at 12-months, and 122 Maori and 281 non-Maori at 24-months. The prevalence of any PIP (i.e. ≥1 PIM and/or PPO) was 66, 75 and 72% for Maori at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. In non-Maori, the prevalence of any PIP was 62, 71 and 73% at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. At each time-point, there were more PPOs than PIMs; at baseline Maori were exposed to a significantly greater proportion of PPOs compared to non-Maori (p = 0.02). In Maori: PPOs were associated with a 1.5-fold increase in hospitalisations and mortality. In non-Maori, PIMs were associated with a double risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PIP was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality in this cohort. Omissions appear more important for Maori in predicting hospitalisations, and PIMs were more important in non-Maori in predicting mortality. These results suggest understanding prescribing outcomes across and between population groups is needed and emphasises prescribing quality assessment is useful.

The Association Between Drug Burden Index (DBI) and Health-Related Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of the 'Oldest Old' (LiLACS NZ).

BACKGROUND: The prescribing of medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative properties is considered potentially inappropriate in older people (due to their side-effect profile), and the Drug Burden Index (DBI) is an evidence-based tool which measures exposure to these medications. Life and Living in Advanced Age: a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) is an ongoing longitudinal study investigating the determinants of healthy ageing. Using data from LiLACS NZ, this study aimed to determine whether a higher DBI was associated with poorer outcomes (hospitalisation, falls, mortality and cognitive function and functional status) over 36 months follow-up. METHODS: LiLACS NZ consists of two cohorts: Maori (the indigenous population of New Zealand) aged ≥ 80 years and non-Maori aged 85 years at the time of enrolment. Data relating to regularly prescribed medications at baseline, 12 months and 24 months were used in this study. Medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative properties (i.e. medications with a DBI > 0) were identified using the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) medication formulary, New Zealand. DBI was calculated for everyone enrolled at each time point. The association between DBI at baseline and outcomes was evaluated throughout a series of 12-month follow-ups using negative binomial (hospitalisations and falls), Cox (mortality) and linear (cognitive function and functional status) regression analyses (significance p < 0.05). Regression models were adjusted for age, gender, general practitioner (GP) visits, socioeconomic deprivation, number of medicines prescribed and one of the following: prior hospitalisation, history of falls, baseline cognitive function [Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS)] or baseline functional status [Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL)]. RESULTS: Full demographic data were obtained for 671, 510 and 403 individuals at baseline, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. Overall, 31%, 30% and 34% of individuals were prescribed a medication with a DBI > 0 at baseline, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. At baseline and 12 months, non-Maori had a greater mean DBI (0.28 ± 0.5 and 0.27 ± 0.5, respectively) compared to Maori (0.16 ± 0.3 and 0.18 ± 0.5, respectively). At baseline, the most commonly prescribed medicines with a DBI > 0 were zopiclone, doxazosin, amitriptyline and codeine. In Maori, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality: at 36 months follow-up, adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 1.89 (1.11-3.20), p = 0.02. In non-Maori, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality [at 12 months follow-up, adjusted hazard ratio (95% CIs) 2.26 (1.09-4.70), p = 0.03] and impaired cognitive function [at 24 months follow-up, adjusted mean difference in 3MS score (95% CIs) 0.89 (- 3.89 to - 0.41), p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using data from LiLACS NZ, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality (in Maori and non-Maori) and impaired cognitive function (in non-Maori). This highlights the importance of employing strategies to manage the prescribing of medications with a DBI > 0 in older adults.

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings.  Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion.  Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity.  PROSPERO Registration:  CRD42019139679 (28/08/19).

Supporting prescribing in Irish primary care: protocol for a non-randomised pilot study of a general practice pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing for patients taking multiple medicines (i.e. polypharmacy) is challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Limited evidence suggests that the integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve the management of these patients. The aim of this study is to develop and test an intervention involving pharmacists, working within GP practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland, which has a mixed public and private primary healthcare system. METHODS: This non-randomised pilot study will use a mixed-methods approach. Four general practices will be purposively sampled and recruited. A pharmacist will join the practice team for 6 months. They will participate in the management of repeat prescribing and undertake medication reviews (which will address high-risk prescribing and potentially inappropriate prescribing, deprescribing and cost-effective and generic prescribing) with adult patients. Pharmacists will also provide prescribing advice regarding the use of preferred drugs, undertake clinical audits, join practice team meetings and facilitate practice-based education. Throughout the 6-month intervention period, anonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data will be collected. A nested Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) study will be undertaken during months 4 and 5 of the 6-month intervention period to explore the impact of the intervention in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). For this, a sub-set of 50 patients aged ≥ 65 years with significant polypharmacy (≥ 10 repeat medicines) will be recruited from each practice and invited to a medication review with the pharmacist. PROMs and healthcare utilisation data will be collected using patient questionnaires, and a 6-week follow-up review conducted. Acceptability of the intervention will be explored using pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be undertaken and an economic evaluation conducted. DISCUSSION: This non-randomised pilot study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and potential effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and provide data on whether a randomised controlled trial of this intervention is indicated. It will also provide a deeper understanding as to how a pharmacist working as part of the general practice team will affect organisational processes and professional relationships in a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.

Community pharmacists' views of using a screening tool to structure medicines use reviews for older people: findings from qualitative interviews.

Background The Medicines use review (MUR) service, provided by community pharmacists, seeks to optimise patients' use of medicines. There is limited evidence on the clinical effectiveness of this service. Structuring MURs to include an assessment of prescribing appropriateness, facilitated by a validated prescribing screening tool, has the capacity to enhance this service. Objective To explore community pharmacists' views on the facilitators and barriers towards the utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Setting Community Pharmacy, Northern Ireland. Method Using the 14 domain Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. Main Outcome Measure Pharmacists' views towards utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Results Based on the analysis of 15 interviews, 11 TDF domains ('Knowledge', 'Skills', 'Social and professional role and identity', 'Beliefs about capabilities', 'Beliefs about consequences', 'Reinforcement', 'Goals', 'Memory, attention and decision process', 'Environmental context and resources', 'Social influences', 'Behavioural regulation') were deemed relevant. Facilitators included: knowledge of patients, clinical knowledge, perceived professional role, patients' clinical outcomes, influence of peers. Barriers included: prioritisation of other clinical activities, inability to access patients' clinical information, perceived alienation from the primary healthcare team and staffing issues. Conclusions Using the TDF, key facilitators and barriers were identified in the use of a screening tool as a guide to conducting MURs. These findings may assist in further development of MURs as a means to optimise patients' medicines use.

The Association Between Anticholinergic Medication Burden and Health Related Outcomes in the 'Oldest Old': A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Increased exposure to anticholinergic medication is problematic, particularly in those aged 80 years and older. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify tools used to quantify anticholinergic medication burden and determine the most appropriate tool for use in longitudinal research, conducted in those aged 80 years and older. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases to identify existing tools. Data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers; studies describing the development of each tool were also retrieved and relevant data extracted. An assessment of quality was completed for all studies. Tools were assessed in terms of their measurement of the association between anticholinergic medication burden and a defined set of clinical outcomes, their development and their suitability for use in longitudinal research; the latter was evaluated on the basis of criteria defined as the key attributes of an ideal anticholinergic risk tool. RESULTS: In total, 807 papers were retrieved, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion and eight tools were identified. Included studies were classed as 'very good' or 'good' following the quality assessment analysis; one study was unclassified. Anticholinergic medication burden as measured in studies was associated with impaired cognitive and physical function, as well as an increased frequency of falls. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) exhibited most of the key attributes of an ideal anticholinergic risk tool. CONCLUSION: This review identified the DBI as the most appropriate tool for use in longitudinal research focused on older people and their exposure to anticholinergic medication burden.