Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- primary care (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
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.
Background: We conducted a comprehensive medication review at the patients’ home, using data from electronic patient records, and with input from relevant specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists formulated and implemented recommendations to optimize medication use in patients aged 60+ years with polypharmacy. We evaluated the effect of this medication review on quality of life (QoL) and medication use. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial (stepped wedge), randomly assigning general practices to one of three consecutive steps. Patients received usual care until the intervention was implemented. Primary outcome was QoL (SF-36 and EQ-5D); secondary outcomes were medication changes, medication adherence and (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL, iADL) which were measured at baseline, and around 6- and 12-months post intervention. Results: Twenty-four general practices included 360 women and 410 men with an average age of 75 years (SD 7.5). A positive effect on SF-36 mental health (estimated mean was stable in the intervention, but decreased in the control condition with −6.1, p = 0.009,) was found with a reduced number of medications at follow-up compared to the control condition. No significant effects were found on other QoL subscales, ADL, iADL or medication adherence. Conclusion: The medication review prevented decrease of mental health (SF36), with no significant effects on other outcome measures, apart from a reduction in the number of prescribed medications.
Background: Increasingly, informal caregivers in Belgium care in group for an older patient. This study aimed to decrease the caregiver burden and to increase the well-being of caregivers and patients by supporting the needs of informal care groups of older patients (≥70 years).
Method: Through an online self-management tool, the groups were supported to make informed choices concerning the care for the older patient, taking into account the standards, values, concerns and needs of every caregiver and patient. A pre-post study was performed.
Results: Although patients and caregivers considered the self-management tool as useful and supportive, no clear evidence for decreased caregiver burden was found. There was a positive trend in group characteristics such as the distribution of tasks, communication and prevalence of conflicts. Caregivers also stated that they took more time for themselves, had less feelings of guilt and experienced less barriers to ask help.
Conclusion: Tailor-made support of informal care groups starts with facilitating and guiding a process to achieve consent within the group to optimise the care for the patient and also for the caregivers. With a shared vision and supported decisions, caregivers can enter into conversations with the professional caregiver to coordinate adjusted support regarding the care needs.