Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- polypharmacy (3)
- process evaluation (2)
- clinical decision support (1)
- continuity of care (1)
- digital decision-support (1)
- elderly (1)
- evidence-based guideline (1)
- general practice (1)
- health services research (1)
- medication management (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Polypharmacy is associated with a risk of negative health outcomes. Potentially inappropriate medications, interactions resulting from contradicting medical guidelines, and inappropriate monitoring, all increase the risk. This process evaluation (PE) of the AdAM study investigates implementation and use of a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The CDSS analyzes medication appropriateness by including claims data, and hence provides general practitioners (GPs) with full access to patients’ medical treatments. We based our PE on pseudonymized logbook entries into the CDSS and used the four dimensions of the Medical Research Council PE framework. Reach, which examines the extent to which the intended study population was included, and Dose, Fidelity, and Tailoring, which examine how the software was actually used by GPs. The PE was explorative and descriptive. Study participants were representative of the target population, except for patients receiving a high level of nursing care, as they were treated less frequently. GPs identified and corrected inappropriate prescriptions flagged by the CDSS. The frequency and intensity of interventions documented in the form of logbook entries lagged behind expectations, raising questions about implementation barriers to the intervention and the limitations of the PE. Impossibility to connect the CDSS to GPs’ electronic medical records (EMR) of GPs due to technical conditions in the German healthcare system may have hindered the implementation of the intervention. Data logged in the CDSS may underestimate medication changes in patients, as documentation was voluntary and already included in EMR.
Objective: After stratifying for age, sex and multimorbidity at baseline, our aim is to analyse time trends in incident multimorbidity and polypharmacy in the 15-year clinical trajectories of individual patients in a family medicine setting.
Methods: This study was carried out using data from the Registration Network Family Medicine in the South of the Netherlands. The clinical trajectories of 10037 subjects during the 15-year period (2000–2014) were analyzed in a repeated measurement of using a generalized estimating equations model as well as a multilevel random intercept model with repeated measurements to determine patterns of incident multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Hierarchical age-period-cohort models were used to generate age and cohort trajectories for comparison with prevalence trends in multimorbidity literature.
Results: Multimorbidity was more common in females than in males throughout the duration of the 15-year trajectory (females: 39.6%; males: 33.5%). With respective ratios of 11.7 and 5.9 between the end and the beginning of the 15-year period, the youngest female and male groups showed a substantial increase in multimorbidity prevalence. Ratios in the oldest female and male groups were 2.2 and 1.9 respectively. Females had higher levels of multimorbidity than males in the 0-24-year and 25-44-year age groups, but the levels converged to a prevalence of 92.2% in the oldest male and 90.7% in the oldest female group. Similar, albeit, moderate differences were found in polypharmacy patterns.
Conclusions: We sought to specify the progression of multimorbidity from an early age. As a result, our study adds to the multimorbidity literature by specifying changes in chronic disease accumulation with relation to polypharmacy, and by tracking differences in patient trajectories according to age and sex. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are common and their prevalence is accelerating, with a relatively rapid increase in younger groups. From the point of view of family medicine, this underlines the need for a longitudinal approach and a life course perspective in patient care.
Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.
Background: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study’s aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.
Objective: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council’s guideline dimensions.
Research Questions:
We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs’ and patients’ characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?
Methods: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs’ use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.
Discussion: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.