81
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Objective

          To synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults.

          Design

          A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings.

          Setting

          All healthcare settings.

          Participants

          Medical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults.

          Outcomes

          Prescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults.

          Results

          21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported.

          Conclusions

          A multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

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

          Patient barriers to and enablers of deprescribing: a systematic review.

          Inappropriate medication use is common in the elderly and the risks associated with their use are well known. The term deprescribing has been utilised to describe the complex process that is required for the safe and effective cessation of inappropriate medications. Given the primacy of the consumer in health care, their views must be central in the development of any deprescribing process. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers that may influence a patient's decision to cease a medication. A systematic search of MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit and Scopus was conducted and augmented with a manual search. Numerous search terms relating to withdrawal of medications and consumers' beliefs were utilised. Articles were included if the barriers or enablers were directly patient/carer reported and related to long-term medication(s) that they were currently taking or had recently ceased. Determination of relevance and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Content analysis with coding was utilised for synthesis of results. Twenty-one articles met the criteria and were included in the review. Three themes, disagreement/agreement with 'appropriateness' of cessation, absence/presence of a 'process' for cessation, and negative/positive 'influences' to cease medication, were identified as both potential barriers and enablers, with 'fear' of cessation and 'dislike' of medications as a fourth barrier and enabler, respectively. The most common barrier/enabler identified was 'appropriateness' of cessation, with 15 studies identifying this as a barrier and 18 as an enabler. The decision to stop a medication by an individual is influenced by multiple competing barriers and enablers. Knowledge of these will aid in the development of a deprescribing process, particularly in approaching the topic of cessation with the patient and what process should be utilised. However, further research is required to determine if the proposed patient-centred deprescribing process will result in improved patient outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding the culture of prescribing: qualitative study of general practitioners' and patients' perceptions of antibiotics for sore throats.

              To better understand reasons for antibiotics being prescribed for sore throats despite well known evidence that they are generally of little help. Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. General practices in South Wales. 21 general practitioners and 17 of their patients who had recently consulted for a sore throat or upper respiratory tract infection. Subjects' experience of management of the illness, patients' expectations, beliefs about antibiotic treatment for sore throats, and ideas for reducing prescribing. Doctors knew of the evidence for marginal effectiveness yet often prescribed for good relationships with patients. Possible patient benefit outweighed theoretical community risk from resistant bacteria. Most doctors found prescribing "against the evidence" uncomfortable and realised this probably increased workload. Explanations of the distinction between virus and bacterium often led to perceived confusion. Clinicians were divided on the value of leaflets and national campaigns, but several favoured patient empowerment for self care by other members of the primary care team. Patient expectations were seldom made explicit, and many were not met. A third of patients had a clear expectation for antibiotics, and mothers were more likely to accept non-antibiotic treatment for their children than for themselves. Satisfaction was not necessarily related to receiving antibiotics, with many seeking reassurance, further information, and pain relief. This prescribing decision is greatly influenced by considerations of the doctor-patient relationship. Consulting strategies that make patient expectations explicit without damaging relationships might reduce unwanted antibiotics. Repeating evidence for lack of effectiveness is unlikely to change doctors' prescribing, but information about risk to individual patients might. Emphasising positive aspects of non-antibiotic treatment and lack of efficacy in general might be helpful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2014
                8 December 2014
                : 4
                : 12
                : e006544
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre of Research Excellence in Quality & Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                [2 ]Charming Institute, Camp Hill , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                [3 ]School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                [4 ]Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital , Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Ms Kristen Anderson; k.anderson8@ 123456uq.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1937-2416
                Article
                bmjopen-2014-006544
                10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006544
                4265124
                25488097
                2e818677-3446-4ad2-84ce-b2fef9159825
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 4 September 2014
                : 16 October 2014
                : 6 November 2014
                Categories
                Qualitative Research
                Research
                1506
                1725
                1723

                Medicine
                qualitative research,geriatric medicine
                Medicine
                qualitative research, geriatric medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article