Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31562155›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Delivering the right information to the right person at the right time to facilitate deprescribing in hospital: a mixed methods multisite study to inform decision support design in Australia.

Melissa T Baysari, Mai Duong, Wu Yi Zheng, Amy Nguyen, Sarita Lo, Brendan Ng, Angus Ritchie, David Le Couteur, Andrew McLachlan, Alexandra Bennett and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Melissa T BaysariFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-9126
Mai DuongDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital School, Saint Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Wu Yi ZhengFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Amy NguyenCentre for Health Systems & Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarita LoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Royal North Shore Hospital School, Saint Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Brendan NgCapital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
Angus RitchieHealth Informatics Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
David Le CouteurUniversity of Sydney Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew McLachlanFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alexandra BennettNSW Therapeutic Advisory Group, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Sarah HilmerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital School, Saint Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AURoyal North Shore Hospital · AUCapital and Coast District Health Board · NZUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo inform the design of electronic decision support (EDS) to facilitate deprescribing in hospitals we set out to (1) explore the current processes of in-hospital medicines review, deprescribing and communication of deprescribing decisions with the patient's general practitioner (GP), (2) identify barriers to undertaking these tasks and (3) determine user preferences for EDS.

designMultimethod, multisite study comprising observations, semistructured interviews and focus groups.

settingGeneral medicine, geriatric medicine and rehabilitation wards at six hospitals in two local health districts in Sydney, Australia and primary care practices in one primary healthcare district in Sydney, Australia.

participants149 participants took part in observations, interviews and focus groups, including 69 hospital doctors, 13 nurses, 55 pharmacists and 12 GPs.

main outcome measuresObservational data on who was involved in medicines review and deprescribing, when medicines review took place, and what artefacts (eg, forms) were used. Participants reported perceptions of medicines review, polypharmacy and deprescribing and preferences for EDS.

resultsDeprescribing, undertaken during medicines review, was typically performed by a junior doctor, following a decision to deprescribe by a senior doctor. Key barriers to deprescribing included a perception that deprescribing was not the responsibility of hospital doctors, a lack of confidence among junior doctors and pharmacists in broaching this topic with senior doctors and a lack of patient engagement in the deprescribing process. In designing EDS, the tools, likely to be used by junior doctors, pharmacists and nurses, should be available throughout the hospitalisation and should comprise non-interruptive evidence-based guidance on why and how to deprescribe.

conclusionsDeprescribing decisions are complex and influenced by multiple factors. The implementation of EDS alone is unlikely to address all barriers identified. To achieve sustained improvements in monitoring of polypharmacy and subsequent deprescribing, a multifaceted intervention is needed.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesDeprescriptionsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePolypharmacyAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMedication ReconciliationQualitative Researchdecision supportdeprescribingpolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID31562155
PMCPMC6773288
OpenAlexW2975035219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.