Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33411824›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative.

Sue Jordan, Hayley Prout, Neil Carter, John Dicomidis, Jamie Hayes, Jeffrey Round, Andrew Carson-Stevens

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03955133 (Polypharmacy and Adverse Drug Reactions), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03955133 nacompletednot on this map

Polypharmacy and Adverse Drug Reactions: Nurse-led Intervention to Minimise Adverse Drug Reactions for Older Adults in Care Homes: a Quality Improvement Process Intervention

TypeinterventionalSponsorSwansea UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled19ConditionsPolypharmacyArmsAdverse Drug Reaction ADRe Profile for Polypharmacy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Sue JordanFaculty of Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5691-2987
Hayley ProutCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Neil CarterFaculty of Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
John DicomidisCare Home Governance and National Lead Pharmacy Informatics, Pontypool, Wales, United Kingdom.
Jamie HayesSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Jeffrey RoundInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew Carson-StevensDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.

interventionThe Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.

objectivesWe investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives. SETTING AND

participantsIn three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.

methodsThis mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.

resultsWe recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers. IMPLICATIONS: ADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes. REGISTRATION: NLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary StudiesPolypharmacyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedNursing HomesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33411824
PMCPMC7790299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.