63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence-based, patient-centred deprescribing process : Patient-centred deprescribing process

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inappropriate use of medication is widespread, especially in older people, and is associated with risks, including adverse drug reactions, hospitalization and increased mortality. Optimization of appropriate medication use to minimize these harms is an ongoing challenge in healthcare. The term 'deprescribing' has been used to describe the complex process that is required for safe and effective cessation of medication. Patients play an important role in their own health and, while they may complain about the number of medications they have to take, they may also be reluctant to cease a medication when given the opportunity to do so. A review of previously proposed deprescribing processes and relevant literature was used to develop the patient-centred deprescribing process, which is a five-step cycle that encompasses gaining a comprehensive medication history, identifying potentially inappropriate medications, determining whether the potentially inappropriate medication can be ceased, planning the withdrawal regimen (e.g. tapering where necessary) and provision of monitoring, support and documentation. This is the first deprescribing process developed using knowledge of the patients' views of medication cessation; it focuses on engaging patients throughout the process, with the aim of improving long-term health outcomes. Despite a comprehensive review of the literature, there is still a lack in the evidence base on which to conduct deprescribing. The next step in broadening the evidence to support deprescribing will be to test the developed process to determine feasibility in the clinical setting. © 2014 The British Pharmacological Society.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care

            The Lancet, 362(9391), 1225-1230
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review.

              Selective eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital to trial feasibility and internal validity. However, the exclusion of certain patient populations may lead to impaired generalizability of results. To determine the nature and extent of exclusion criteria among RCTs published in major medical journals and the contribution of exclusion criteria to the representation of certain patient populations. The MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs published between 1994 and 2006 in certain general medical journals with a high impact factor. Of 4827 articles, 283 were selected using a series technique. Trial characteristics and the details regarding exclusions were extracted independently. All exclusion criteria were graded independently and in duplicate as either strongly justified, potentially justified, or poorly justified according to previously developed and pilot-tested guidelines. Common medical conditions formed the basis for exclusion in 81.3% of trials. Patients were excluded due to age in 72.1% of all trials (60.1% in pediatric populations and 38.5% in older adults). Individuals receiving commonly prescribed medications were excluded in 54.1% of trials. Conditions related to female sex were grounds for exclusion in 39.2% of trials. Of all exclusion criteria, only 47.2% were graded as strongly justified in the context of the specific RCT. Exclusion criteria were not reported in 12.0% of trials. Multivariable analyses revealed independent associations between the total number of exclusion criteria and drug intervention trials (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.65; P = .003) and between the total number of exclusion criteria and multicenter trials (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P = .009). Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, and age. Drug intervention trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, female sex, and socioeconomic status. Among such trials, justification for exclusions related to concomitant medication use and comorbidities were more likely to be poorly justified. The RCTs published in major medical journals do not always clearly report exclusion criteria. Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs. Trials with multiple centers and those involving drug interventions are most likely to have extensive exclusions. Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results. These findings highlight a need for careful consideration and transparent reporting and justification of exclusion criteria in clinical trials.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                Wiley
                03065251
                October 2014
                October 2014
                September 19 2014
                : 78
                : 4
                : 738-747
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences; University of South Australia; Adelaide South Australia Australia
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology; Royal Adelaide Hospital; Adelaide South Australia Australia
                [3 ]Pharmacy Department; Repatriation General Hospital; Daw Park South Australia Australia
                [4 ]School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences; University of South Australia; Adelaide South Australia Australia
                [5 ]Therapeutics Research Centre; School of Medicine; University of Queensland; Brisbane Queensland Australia
                Article
                10.1111/bcp.12386
                4239968
                24661192
                2dd985b9-0c1f-4482-99f7-6e458a8e55be
                © 2014

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log