Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33766141›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2021

A non-randomised feasibility study of an intervention to optimise medicines at transitions of care for patients with heart failure.

Beth Fylan, Hanif Ismail, Suzanne Hartley, Chris P Gale, Amanda J Farrin, Peter Gardner, Jonathan Silcock, David P Alldred, ISCOMAT Programme Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Beth FylanSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK. B.Fylan@bradford.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-4537
Hanif IsmailSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7885-6648
Suzanne HartleyClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Chris P GaleLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4732-382X
Amanda J FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2876-0584
Peter GardnerSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8799-0443
Jonathan SilcockSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4920-9249
David P AlldredNIHR Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. Bradford Institute for Health Research, Temple Bank House, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-4854
ISCOMAT Programme Team

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0514-20009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure affects 26 million people globally, and the optimal management of medicines is crucial for patients, particularly when their care is transferred between hospital and the community. Optimising clinical outcomes requires well-calibrated cross-organisational processes with staff and patients responding and adapting to medicines changes. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a complex intervention (the Medicines at Transitions Intervention; MaTI) co-designed by patients and healthcare staff. The purpose of the intervention was to optimise medicines management across the gaps between secondary and primary care when hospitals handover care. The study objectives were to (1) assess feasibility through meeting specified progression criteria to proceed to the trial, (2) assess if the intervention was acceptable to staff and patients, and (3) determine whether amendment or refinement would be needed to enhance the MaTI.

methodsThe feasibility of the MaTI was tested in three healthcare areas in the North of England between July and October 2017. Feasibility was measured and assessed through four agreed progression to trial criteria: (1) patient recruitment, (2) patient receipt of a medicines toolkit, (3) transfer of discharge information to community pharmacy, and (4) offer of a community pharmacy medicines review/discussion or medicines reconciliation. From the cardiology wards at each of the three NHS Acute Trusts (sites), 10 patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were recruited and introduced to the 'My Medicines Toolkit' (MMT). Patients were asked to identify their usual community pharmacy or nominate a pharmacy. Discharge information was transferred to the community pharmacy; pharmacists were asked to reconcile medicines and invited patients for a medicines use review (MUR) or discussion. At 1 month following discharge, all patients were sent three questionnaire sets: quality-of-life, healthcare utilisation, and a patient experience survey. In a purposive sample, 20 patients were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the MaTI. Staff from hospital and primary care settings involved in patients' care were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Patient and staff interviews were analysed using Framework Analysis. Questionnaire completion rates were recorded and data were descriptively analysed.

resultsThirty-one patients were recruited across three sites. Eighteen staff and 18 patients took part in interviews, and 19 patients returned questionnaire sets. All four progression to trial criteria were met. We identified barriers to patient engagement with the intervention in hospital, which were compounded by patients' focus on returning home. Some patients described not engaging in discussions with staff about medicines and lacking motivation to do so because they were preoccupied with returning home. Some patients were unable or unwilling to attend a community pharmacy in person for a medicines review. Roles and responsibilities for delivering the MaTI were different in the three sites, and staff reported variations in time spent on MaTI activities. Staff reported some work pressures and staff absences that limited the time they could spend talking to patients about their medicines. Clinical teams reported that recording a target dose for heart failure medicines in patient-held documentation was difficult as they did not always know the ideal or tolerable dose. The majority of patients reported receiving the patient-held documentation. More than two-thirds reported being offered a MUR by their community pharmacists.

conclusionsDelivery of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) was feasible at all three sites, and progression to trial criteria were met. Refinements were found to be necessary to overcome identified barriers and strengthen delivery of all steps of the intervention. Necessary changes to the MaTI were identified along with amendments to the implementation plan for the subsequent trial. Future implementation needs to take into account the complexity of medicines management and adaptation to local context.

Indexed as

CardiologyCare transitionsClinical trialsComplex interventionFeasibility studiesHeart failure

Identifiers

PMID33766141
PMCPMC7995719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.