View clinical trials related to Inappropriate Prescribing.
Filter by:This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a comprehensive, multicomponent intervention utilizing education and support for Benzodiazepines withdrawal compared to standard care.
The DROPIT Trial is an interventional, open-labelled, cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in the Swiss primary care setting. It aims to evaluate an intervention to guide the deprescribing of inappropriate proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). Therefore, the trial investigates whether the study intervention leads to the deprescribing of inappropriate PPI prescription while ensuring noninferiority safety, in comparison to usual care. Additionally, the trail aims to investigate the intervention's impact on other clinical aspects, as well as addressing features of the implementation of the intervention and its cost-effectiveness.
The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led medication review using the locally developed Malaysian Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Screening tool in Older Adults (MALPIP), an explicit criteria in hospitalized older adults. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. The effectiveness of the intervention in reducing the number of PIMs and chronic medications after discharge 2. The impact of the intervention on quality of life, falls events, emergency department visits, readmissions and survivals Researchers will compare the control group to see if there is corresponding changes to the outcomes specified above.
This study's main objective is to investigate whether the application of an adapted person-centred prescription model during a hospital stay would reduce the use of inappropriate or futile regular medications in older people at the end of life, improving their clinical/health statuses and reducing the expense associated with pharmacological treatment. We hypothesised that applying this modified method could optimise pharmacotherapeutic indicators and the expense associated with the pharmacological treatment of hospitalised patients
In 2012, the General Medical Council (GMC) funded PRACtICe (PRevalence And Causes of prescrIbing errors in general practiCe) study, reported that 1 in 20 prescriptions in general practice were found to have a prescribing or monitoring error. The PRACtICe study also proposed some strategies to consider to improve prescribing safety. Further to the PRACtICe study, in line with recommendation from the Medical Research Council (MRC) for developing complex interventions, we conducted a series of focus groups with health care professionals and members of the public to identify possible ways to improve the prescribing education provided for general practitioner (GP) trainees - a group that was identified as likely to benefit from additional education and training in prescribing safety. These focus group discussions identified a pharmacist-led review of the prescribing done by GP trainees, together with feedback, as a promising potential intervention. This intervention, named REVISiT, was piloted with ten trainees and their trainers in the East Midlands. The error rate for the trainees was recorded as 9%. Interviews with the trainees and trainers undertaken following the intervention highlighted that REVISiT was positively received. Some GPs gave examples of how their prescribing practice had changed following the intervention. After this pilot study, we conducted another study involving interviews, focus groups and a stakeholder event with key stakeholders (practice, policy, legal and members of the public) to explore the next steps for REVISiT. Whilst some participants proposed that REVISiT be immediately implemented with minor modifications, others pointed to the need to establish the impact of the intervention more broadly (including its impact in areas other than education and training). Additionally, they highlighted the importance of establishing its effectiveness in order to support making a substantial case for future allocation of resources. Conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) would help establish the effectiveness of the REVISIT intervention and its impact on areas of professional practice that may impact prescribing safety. However, before we can do this, there are components of the REVISiT intervention and RCT process that we need to further explore, test and refine in order for it to be employed on a wider basis. This pilot study of the REVISiT intervention is being undertaken to do this further exploration, testing and refining.
One mechanism to reduce potentially inappropriate medications is through deprescribing, a deimplementation-based approach to thoughtfully discontinue a medication a patient is currently prescribed. Many interventions to overcome deprescribing barriers target the provider, who is already overburdened. Although some believe providers have primary responsibility for deprescribing, patient-initiated discontinuation discussions can effectively facilitate deprescribing. In a single-site pilot study, the investigators successfully engaged VA Primary Care patients to facilitate deprescribing of select potentially inappropriate medications. The investigators now propose a multisite randomized controlled trial of engaging Veterans who may be deprescribing candidates. By study end, the investigators will have established the effectiveness of an innovative, low-tech, patient-focused intervention to promote deprescribing, thereby directly improving quality, safety, and value of VA care while also setting the stage for generalization of this approach to other potentially inappropriate medications.
A mono-center, randomized controlled trial will be conducted at the University Hospital of Lausanne. Hospitalized patients will be randomly assigned from the emergency department to two sub-units composing the acute care for elders (ACE) unit. In one subunit, potentially inappropriate prescriptions will be detected and treatment optimized according PIM-Check. In the other, STOPP/START criteria will be independently applied.
The De-imFAR study is a two phase study that aims to carry out and test a structured, evidence-based and theory informed process involving the main stakeholders (managers, professionals, patients and researches) for the design, deployment, and evaluation of targeted de-implementation strategies for reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Specifically, the targeted low-value practice of the DE-imFAR study is the pharmacological prescription of statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low-risk patients. In order to prevent CVD, one of the leading causes of morbidity and death worldwide, there is general agreement on the indication of lipid-lowering treatment, mainly with statins, in patients with a cardiovascular risk (CVR) measurement greater than 10% over 10 years or in secondary prevention. Whereas, for primary prevention in patients with low CVR (<10%), preventive activities should be focused on the promotion of healthy lifestyles through optimizing diet, increasing physical activity, and stopping smoking. Aims 1. Phase I: To design and model in a collegiate way among the agents involved (professionals, patients, managers and researchers) de-implementation strategies to favour the reduction and / or abandonment of low-value prescription of lipid-lowering drugs in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. This strategy will be designed using systematic, comprehensive frameworks based on theory and evidence for the design of implementation strategies - the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), focused on addressing the main determinants (barriers and facilitators) of clinical practice of primary prevention of CVD and adapted to the specific context of primary care in Osakidetza-Basque Health System 2. Phase II: To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of several de-implementation strategies derived from the systematic process of identification of determinants and mapping of adapted intervention strategies with the TDF/BCW frameworks: a strategy based on providing evidence-based information communication technology tools to help and guide decision-making (a non-reflective decision assistance strategy); a decision information strategy based on the dissemination of the evidence concerning CVD primary prevention framed in a corporate campaign encouraging family physicians to move away from PIP (a both reflective and non-reflective decision information strategy) ; and a reflective decision structure strategy encouraging reflection on actual performance based on an audit/feedback system (A reflective decision structure strategy). Hypothesis Professionals exposed to the de-implementation strategies derived from the systematic process of identification of determinants and mapping of adapted intervention strategies with the TDF/BCW frameworks, will be effective in reducing and/or abandoning the prescription of statins in primary prevention of CVD. Among the evaluated de-implementation strategies, those that encourage self-reflection on actual performance will obtain the largest effects as compared to non-reflective strategies. Design Phase I formative research to design and model de-implementation strategies and Phase II effectiveness and feasibility evaluation through a cluster randomized implementation trial with an additional control group. Phase I formative research will include the following actions: Cross-sectional observational study of low value pharmacological prescription in the primary prevention of CVD; Literature review on the determinants of low value pharmacological prescription behaviour and effective intervention strategies; Qualitative study on the determinants of low value pharmacological prescription in primary prevention of CVD; Collegiate mapping of the de-implementation strategies; Selection of de-implementation strategies based in perceived effectiveness and feasibility. During Phase II, the evaluation of several de-implementation strategies produced through the phase I formative evaluation will be conducted. A mixed method evaluation will be used: quantitative for assessing the implementation results at the professional level and qualitative for assessing the feasibility and perceived impact of the de-implementation strategies from the family physicians' (FPs) perspective and the experience and satisfaction of patients concerning the clinical care received.
Medications can help older adults but can also harm them. Frail older adults tend to have many health problems that require treatment, but are also at risk of harm from the medications prescribed. This makes it hard to get older adults the treatments they need and keep them safe from the harms from medications. It ends up that a lot of visits to emergency rooms and hospitals are due to medications, especially for older adults. Previous research has shown the benefits of stopping medications older adults no longer need. Even so, healthcare professionals do not always do this as well as they could. Our goal is to make a collection of resources for pharmacists who work with doctors and nurses in primary settings that will help support older adults as they safely stop medications that are no longer needed. The investigators will use knowledge and tools that are already known and published. In the first six months the team, which includes older adults and their families, pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and healthcare policymakers developed a framework and resource toolbox that pharmacists can use to help older adults stop medications that are no longer needed. In the remaining 10 months, the investigators will use the resource toolbox in primary healthcare teams and nursing homes. Overall, the investigators expect that by using the resources the pharmacists will be able to support patients stop medications they no longer need and help reduce the number of pills people take, reduce drug costs, reduce harms from medication use and improve quality of life for frail older adults and their loved ones.
Elders living with multiple chronic conditions often take many drugs (polypharmacy); some of the drugs may not benefit them or may be harmful. The Canadian Institute for Health Information has reported that about one-quarter of Canadian seniors are prescribed ten or more different drugs each year. Polypharmacy can result in poorer health, reduced quality of life and high healthcare costs. Choosing Wisely Canada and the Canadian Deprescribing Network have suggested wiser uses for the following four Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs): drugs that reduce stomach acid; reduce anxiety and induce sleep; treat agitation; and treat type 2 diabetes but have a high risk of low blood sugar. To improve care for elderly patients living with polypharmacy, we propose SPIDER: a Structured Process Informed by Data, Evidence and Research. Using quality improvement (QI) and supported by Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data, SPIDER will invite family doctors, nurses, pharmacists and front desk staff to participate in Learning Collaboratives and learn from each other. The practice teams will work with a QI Coach to identify areas to improve, develop strategies and implement changes tailored to the local practice context. The objective of this study is to determine whether SPIDER will reduce PIPs for patients 65 years or older who are on ten or more different drugs. The study will also explore patient experience and provider satisfaction with SPIDER and assess the cost of running SPIDER. The study will first be tested for feasibility in Toronto, Edmonton and Montreal. Findings will then guide a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) in Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax where practices enrolled in the SPIDER intervention will be compared with those in usual care.