Dataset Information

"Stabilise-reduce, stabilise-reduce": A survey of the common practices of deprescribing services and recommendations for future services.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Public Health England recently called for the establishment of services to help people to safely stop prescribed drugs associated with dependence and withdrawal, including benzodiazepines, z-drugs, antidepressants, gabapentinoids and opioids. NICE identified a lack of knowledge about the best model for such service delivery. Therefore, we performed a global survey of existing deprescribing services to identify common practices and inform service development.

Methods

We identified existing deprescribing services and interviewed key personnel in these services using an interview co-produced with researchers with lived experience of withdrawal. We summarised the common practices of the services and analysed the interviews using a rapid form of qualitative framework analysis.

Results

Thirteen deprescribing services were included (8 UK, 5 from other countries). The common practices in the services were: gradual tapering of medications often over more than a year, and reductions made in a broadly hyperbolic manner (smaller reductions as total dose became lower). Reductions were individualised so that withdrawal symptoms remained tolerable, with the patient leading this decision-making in most services. Support and reassurance were provided throughout the process, sometimes by means of telephone support lines. Psychosocial support for the management of underlying conditions (e.g. CBT, counselling) were provided by the service or through referral. Lived experience was often embedded in services through founders, hiring criteria, peer support and sources of information to guide tapering.

Conclusion

We found many common practices across existing deprescribing services around the world. We suggest that these ingredients are included in commissioning guidance of future services and suggest directions for further research to clarify best practice.

SUBMITTER: Cooper RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10016688 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Stabilise-reduce, stabilise-reduce": A survey of the common practices of deprescribing services and recommendations for future services.

Cooper Ruth E RE Ashman Michael M Lomani Jo J Moncrieff Joanna J Guy Anne A Davies James J Morant Nicola N Horowitz Mark M

PloS one 20230315 3

<h4>Background</h4>Public Health England recently called for the establishment of services to help people to safely stop prescribed drugs associated with dependence and withdrawal, including benzodiazepines, z-drugs, antidepressants, gabapentinoids and opioids. NICE identified a lack of knowledge about the best model for such service delivery. Therefore, we performed a global survey of existing deprescribing services to identify common practices and inform service development.<h4>Methods</h4>We ...[more]

PMID: 36920968

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare centers quickly adapted services into virtual formats. Pain clinics in Canada play a vital role in helping people living with pain, and these clinics remained essential services for patients throughout the pandemic. This study aimed to (1) describe and compare the transition from in-person to virtual pain care services at Canadian pain clinics during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) provide postpandemic recommendations for pain care services to optimize the quality of patient care.Materials and methodsWe used a qualitative participatory action study design that included a cross-sectional survey for data collection and descriptive analysis to summarize the findings. Survey responses were collected between January and March of 2021. The survey was administered to the leadership teams of 11 adult pain clinics affiliated with the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans. Responses were analyzed qualitatively to describe the transition to the virtual pain services at pain clinics.ResultsWe achieved a 100% response rate from participating clinics. The results focus on describing the transition to the virtual care, current treatment and services, the quality of care, program sustainability, barriers to maintaining virtual services, and future considerations.ConclusionsParticipating clinics were capable of transitioning pain care services to the virtual formats and have in-person care when needed with proper safety precautions. The pandemic demonstrated that it is feasible and sustainable for pain clinics to have a hybrid of virtual and in-person care to treat those living with pain. It is recommended that moving forward, there should be a hybrid of both virtual and in-person care for pain clinics. Ministries of Health should continue to develop policies and funding mechanisms that support innovations aimed at holistic healthcare, interdisciplinary teams, and the expansion of clinics' geographical reach for patient access.

Project description:BackgroundEvolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.MethodsThe 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.ResultsA total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.ConclusionsGSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.

Project description:BackgroundClass specific deprescribing guidelines could help clinicians taper and stop medications no longer needed or which may be causing more harm than benefit. We set out to develop methodology to create such guidelines using evidence-based methods for guideline development, evidence synthesis and recommendation rating.Methods and findingsUsing a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise, we conducted a national modified Delphi consensus process to identify priorities for deprescribing guidelines, then conducted scoping exercises to identify feasible topics, and sequentially developed three deprescribing guidelines. We selected guideline development team members for clinical expertise; a GRADE member worked with staff to ensure guideline development processes were followed. We conducted or used systematic searches and reviews of deprescribing trials of selected drug classes, reviews or systematic reviews of drug class effectiveness, reviews of reviews of drug class harm and narrative syntheses of contextual questions to inform recommendations and guideline development. Our 8 step process for guideline development included defining scope and purpose, developing a logic model to guide the process and generate key clinical questions, setting criteria for admissible evidence and conducting systematic reviews, synthesizing evidence considering additional contextual information and performing quality estimates, formulating recommendations and providing strength estimations, adding clinical considerations, conducting clinical and stakeholder review and finally updating content pre-publication. Innovative aspects of the guideline development process included synthesizing evidence for outcomes of tapering or stopping medication, and incorporating evidence for medication harm into the recommendation strength rating. Through the development of three deprescribing guidelines (for proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepine receptor agonists and antipsychotics) and associated decision-support algorithms, we were able to gradually hone the methodology; each guideline will be published separately.ConclusionOur methodology demonstrates the importance of searching for short and long-term outcomes, showing the benefits of deprescribing and studying patient preferences. This publication will support development of future deprescribing guidelines.

Project description:Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.

Project description:PurposeTo provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions.ResultsThe 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients' unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications.ConclusionsBased on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.

Dataset Information

"Stabilise-reduce, stabilise-reduce": A survey of the common practices of deprescribing services and recommendations for future services.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

"Stabilise-reduce, stabilise-reduce": A survey of the common practices of deprescribing services and recommendations for future services.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets