Effect of Academic Detailing on Promoting Appropriate Prescribing of Antipsychotic Medication in Nursing Homes: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
ABSTRACT: Importance:Strategies to reduce the inappropriate prescription of antipsychotics have been the focus of recent attention but have shown considerable variation in their effectiveness. Objective:To evaluate the effectiveness of academic detailing in nursing homes targeting appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of academic detailing vs usual care on prescribing antipsychotics in 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected from October 2015 to March 2016 and analyzed from April to August 2018. Primary analyses were conducted using intention to treat. Intervention:Academic detailing delivered by health professionals (eg, nurses or pharmacists) who arranged meetings (with administrators, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and support workers), presentations, group visits (with 2-6 clinicians), and 1-on-1 visits (traditional academic detailing visits). Academic detailers had direct and ongoing contact with the nursing homes from the time of launch. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome, defined at the level of the resident, was whether continuous antipsychotics were dispensed in the past week. Secondary outcomes included prescribing of other psychotropic medications and clinical outcomes and scores. Prescribing outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months, and clinical outcomes and scores were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Results:A total of 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents were randomized, with 18 intervention homes (45.0%; 2303 [42.9%] residents) and 22 control homes (55.0%; 3060 [57.1%] residents). Participants in the intervention and control groups had similar median (interquartile range) age (86 [79-91] years vs 85 [78-90] years) and sex (674 [29.3%] men vs 970 [31.7%] men). At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of daily antipsychotic use (intervention: 569 patients [25.2%]; control: 769 [25.6%]; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P?=?.49). There were no significant differences in the rates of health care utilization, but the intervention group did experience a statistically significant reduction in pain compared with the control group (mean [SD] pain score, 0.30 [0.59] vs 0.38 [0.66]; P?
Project description:Antipsychotic medications are routinely prescribed in nursing homes to address the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Unfortunately, inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medications is common and associated with increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. Multifaceted interventions can achieve a 12-20 % reduction in antipsychotic prescribing levels in nursing homes. Effective interventions have featured educational outreach and ongoing performance feedback.This pragmatic, cluster-randomized control trial and embedded process evaluation seeks to determine the effect of adding academic detailing to audit and feedback on prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes, compared with audit and feedback alone. Nursing homes within pre-determined regions of Ontario, Canada, are eligible if they express an interest in the intervention. The academic detailing intervention will be delivered by registered health professionals following an intensive training program including relevant clinical issues and techniques to support health professional behavior change. Physicians in both groups will have the opportunity to access confidential reports summarizing their prescribing patterns for antipsychotics in comparison to the local and provincial average. Participating homes will be allocated to one of the two arms of the study (active/full intervention versus standard audit and feedback) in two waves, with a 2:1 allocation ratio. Homes will be randomized after stratifying for geography, baseline antipsychotic prescription rates, and size, to ensure a balance of characteristics. The primary outcome is antipsychotic dispensing in nursing homes, measured 6 months after allocation; secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization.Policy-makers and the public have taken note that antipsychotics are used in nursing homes in Ontario far more than other jurisdictions. Academic detailing can be an effective technique to address challenges in appropriate prescribing in nursing homes, but effect sizes vary widely. This opportunistic, policy-driven evaluation, embedded within a government-initiated demonstration project, was designed to ensure policy-makers receive the best evidence possible regarding whether and how to scale up the intervention.ClinicalTrials.gov NLM Identifier: NCT02604056 .
Project description:The majority of nursing home residents with dementia experience behavioural and psychological symptoms like apathy, agitation, and anxiety. According to analyses of prescription prevalence in Germany, antipsychotic drugs are regularly prescribed as first-line treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in persons with dementia, although guidelines clearly prioritise non-pharmacological interventions. Frequently, antipsychotic drugs are prescribed for inappropriate reasons and for too long without regular reviewing. The use of antipsychotics is associated with adverse events like increased risk of falling, stroke, and mortality. The aim of the study is to investigate whether a person-centred care approach, successfully evaluated in nursing homes in the United Kingdom, can be implemented in German nursing homes and, in comparison with a control group, can result in a clinically relevant reduction of the proportion of residents with antipsychotic prescriptions.The study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing an intervention group (two-day initial training on person-centred care and ongoing training and support programme) with a control group. Both study groups will receive, as optimised usual care, a medication review by an experienced psychiatrist/geriatrician providing feedback to the prescribing physician. Overall, 36 nursing homes in East, North, and West Germany will be randomised. The primary outcome is the proportion of residents receiving at least one antipsychotic prescription (long-term medication) after 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are residents' quality of life, agitated behaviour, as well as safety parameters like falls and fall-related medical attention. A health economic evaluation and a process evaluation will be performed alongside the study.To improve care, a reduction of the current high prescription rate of antipsychotics in nursing homes by the intervention programme is expected.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02295462.
Project description:In 2014, nursing home administration and government officials were facing increasing public and media scrutiny around the variation of antipsychotic medication (APM) prescribing across Ontario nursing homes. In response, policy makers partnered to test an academic detailing (AD) intervention to address appropriate prescribing of APM in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized trial. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how and why the AD intervention may have resulted in changes in the nursing home context. The objectives were to understand how the intervention was implemented, explore contextual factors associated with implementation, and examine impact of the intervention on prescribing.Administrative data for the primary outcome of the full randomized trial will not be available for a minimum of 1 year. Therefore, this paper reports the findings of a planned, quantitative interim trial analysis assessed mean APM dose and prescribing prevalence at baseline and 3 and 6 months across 40 nursing homes (18 intervention, 22 control). Patient-level administrative data regarding prescribing were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home staff from the intervention group to explore opinions and experiences of the AD intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method, with constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied as pre-defined deductive codes. Open coding was applied when emerging themes did not align with CFIR constructs. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated to examine points of divergence to understand how the intervention may work and to identify areas for future opportunities and areas for improvement.No significant differences were observed in prescribing outcomes. A total of 22 interviews were conducted, including four academic detailers and 18 nursing home staff. Constructs within the CFIR domains of Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals presented barriers to antipsychotic prescribing. Intervention Source, Evidence Strength and Quality, and Adaptability explained participant engagement in the AD intervention; nursing homes that exhibited a Tension for Change and Leadership Engagement reported positive changes in processes and communication.Participants described their experiences with the intervention against the backdrop of a range of factors that influence APM prescribing in nursing homes that exist at the system, facility, provider, and resident levels. In this context, the perceived credibility and flexibility of the intervention were critical features that explained engagement with and potential impact of the intervention. Development of a common language across the team to enable communication was reported as a proximal outcome that may eventually have an effect on APM prescribing rates. Process evaluations may be useful during early stages of evaluation to understand how the intervention is working and how it might work better. Qualitative results suggest the lack of early changes observed in prescribing may reflect the number of upstream factors that need to change for APM rates to decrease.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02604056.
Project description:Objective: Determine the accuracy of nursing home self-reported antipsychotic prescribing before and after implementation of a Medicare campaign to reduce use.Methods: Quasi-experimental study comparing trends in self-reported antipsychotic prescribing relative to claims-based prescribing. Setting is a nationwide sample of 11,912 facilities, 2011-2013. Participants are long-stay nursing home residents (n?=?586,281) with prescribing data in Medicare Minimum Data Set 3.0 and Medicare Part D claims database. Verified with a pharmacy dispensing database. Main outcomes are the discrepancies in quarterly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing between nursing home self-reports and claims data and the characteristics of facilities and residents where discrepancies were identified.Results: Nursing homes underreport their antipsychotic prescribing levels, on average, by 1 percentage point per quarter relative to Medicare Part D claims (0.013, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.012-0.015; p<.001). After the Medicare campaign, the underreporting gap increased by another half a percentage point (0.004, 95% CI .003-.005; p = .012). Nursing home residents with dementia, Alzheimer's disease or bipolar disorders were at the highest risk for underreported antipsychotic prescribing before the campaign (Adjusted Odds ratio (AOR) 1.385, 95% CI: 1.330-1.444; AOR 1.234, 95% CI: 1.172-1.300; AOR 1.574, 95% CI: 1.444-1.716, respectively) and afterwards. After the launch of the Medicare campaign, underreported antipsychotic prescribing occurred most in for-profit nursing homes (AOR 1.088, 95% CI: 1.005-1.178) and facilities in the US South (AOR 1.262, 95% CI: 1.145-1.391). Agreement was high between claims and dispensing data (99.7%).Conclusion: Nursing homes did not identify up to 6,000 residents per calendar quarter as having received antipsychotics despite these prescriptions being paid by Medicare and dispensed by a pharmacy. Nursing home rates of antipsychotic prescribing from self-reported data may be biased.
Project description:Nursing home residents are frail, have multiple medical comorbidities, and are at high risk for delirium. Most of the existing evidence base on delirium is derived from studies in the acute in-patient population. We examine the association between clinical characteristics and medication use with the incidence of delirium during the nursing home stay.This is a retrospective cohort study of 1571 residents from 12 nursing homes operated by a single care provider in Ontario, Canada. Residents were over the age of 55 and admitted between February 2010 and December 2015 with no baseline delirium and a minimum stay of 180 days. Residents with moderate or worse cognitive impairment at baseline were excluded. The baseline and follow-up characteristics of residents were collected from the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimal Data Set 2.0 completed at admission and repeated quarterly until death or discharge. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify characteristics and medication use associated with the onset of delirium.The incidence of delirium was 40.4% over the nursing home stay (mean LOS: 32 months). A diagnosis of dementia (OR: 2.54, p?<?.001), the presence of pain (OR: 1.64, p?<?.001), and the use of antipsychotics (OR: 1.87, p?<?.001) were significantly associated with the onset of delirium. Compared to residents who did not develop delirium, residents who developed a delirium had a greater increase in the use of antipsychotics and antidepressants over the nursing home stay.Dementia, the presence of pain, and the use of antipsychotics were associated with the onset of delirium. Pain monitoring and treatment may be important to decrease delirium in nursing homes. Future studies are necessary to examine the prescribing patterns in nursing homes and their association with delirium.
Project description:Background:Antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes is associated with potential for harms. In Ontario, Canada, an agency of the provincial government offers nursing home physicians quarterly audit and feedback on their antipsychotic prescribing. We compared the characteristics of physicians who did and did not engage with the intervention, and assessed early changes in prescribing. Methods:This population-level, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative databases to track prescribing practices in nursing homes pre-intervention (baseline), immediately post-initiative (3?months), and at follow-up (6?months). Exposure variables identified whether a physician signed up to participate (or not) or viewed the feedback following sign up (or not). Differences in the proportion of days that residents received antipsychotic medications at 6 months compared to baseline by exposure(s) were assessed using a linear mixed effects regression analysis to adjust for a range of resident, physician, and nursing home factors. Benzodiazepine and statin prescribing were assessed as a balance and tracer measures, respectively. Results:Of 944 eligible physicians, 210 (22.3%) signed up to recieve the feedback report and 132 (13.9%) viewed their feedback. Physicians who signed up for feedback were more likely to have graduated from a Canadian medical school, work in urban nursing homes, and care for a larger number of residents. The clinical and functional characteristics of residents were similar across physician exposure groups. At 6 months, antipsychotic prescribing had decreased in all exposure groups. Those who viewed their feedback report had a signicantly greater reduction in antipsychotic prescribing than those who did not sign up (0.94% patient-days exposed; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.54%, p?=?0.002). Trends in prescribing patterns across exposure groups for benzodiazepines and statins were not statistically significant. Interpretation:Almost a quarter of eligible physicians engaged early in a voluntary audit and feedback intervention related to antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes. Those who viewed their feedback achieved a small but statistically significant change in prescribing, equivalent to approximately 14,000 fewer days that nursing home residents received antipsychotic medications over 6 months. This study adds to the literature regarding the role of audit and feedback interventions to improve quality of care.
Project description:Interventions to improve the fracture prevention in nursing homes are needed.Cluster-randomized, single-blind, controlled trial of a multi-modal quality improvement intervention. Nursing homes (n=67) with > or =10 residents with a diagnosis of osteoporosis or recent hip fracture (n=606) were randomized to receive an early or delayed intervention consisting of audit and feedback, educational modules, teleconferences, and academic detailing. Medical record abstraction and the Minimum Data Set were used to measure the prescription of osteoporosis therapies before and after the intervention period. Analysis was at the facility-level and Generalized Estimating Equation modeling was used to account for clustering.No significant improvements were observed in any of the quality indicators. The use of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy or hip protectors improved by 8.0% in the intervention group and 0.6% in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.72). Participation in the intervention activities was low, but completion of the educational module (odds ratio [OR] 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-12.0) and direct physician contact by an academic detailer (OR 4.5, 95% CI, 1.1-18.2) were significantly associated with prescription of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy or hip protectors in multivariable models.Audit-feedback and education interventions were ineffective in improving fracture prevention in the nursing home setting, although results may have been tempered by low participation in the intervention activities.
Project description:Ageing has become a worldwide reality and presents new challenges for the health-care system. Research has shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing, both potentially inappropriate medications and potentially prescribing omissions, is highly prevalent in older people, especially in the nursing home setting. The presence of potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions is associated with adverse drug events, hospitalisations, mortality and health-care costs. The Collaborative approach to Optimise MEdication use for Older people in Nursing homes (COME-ON) study aims to evaluate the effect of a complex, multifaceted intervention, including interdisciplinary case conferences, on the appropriateness of prescribing of medicines for older people in Belgian nursing homes.A multicentre cluster-controlled trial is set up in 63 Belgian nursing homes (30 intervention; 33 control). In each of these nursing homes, 35 residents (≥65 years) are selected for participation. The complex, multifaceted intervention comprises (i) health-care professional education and training, (ii) local concertation (discussion on the appropriate use of at least one medication class at the level of the nursing home) and (iii) repeated interdisciplinary case conferences between general practitioner, nurse and pharmacist to perform medication review for each included nursing home resident. The control group works as usual. The study period lasts 15 months. The primary outcome measures relate to the appropriateness of prescribing and are defined as (1) among residents who had at least one potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission at baseline, the proportion of them for whom there is a decrease of at least one of these potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions at the end of study, and (2) among all residents, the proportion of them for whom at least one new potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission is present at the end of the study, compared to baseline. The secondary outcome measures include individual components of appropriateness of prescribing, medication use, outcomes of the case conferences, clinical outcomes and costs. A process evaluation (focusing on implementation, causal mechanisms and contextual factors) will be conducted alongside the study.The COME-ON study will contribute to a growing body of knowledge concerning the effect of complex interventions on the use of medicines in the nursing home setting, and on factors influencing their effect. The results will inform policymakers on strategies to implement in the near future.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66138978.
Project description:Background:As part of their professional role, healthcare providers enact multiple competing goal-directed behaviours in time-constrained environments. Better understanding healthcare providers' motivation to engage in the pursuit of particular goals may help inform the development of implementation interventions. We investigated healthcare providers' pursuit of multiple goals as part of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention in supporting appropriate adjustment of high-risk medication prescribing by physicians working in nursing homes. Our objectives were to determine whether goal priority and constructs from Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and descriptive norms) predicted intention to adjust prescribing of multiple high-risk medications and to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals related to high-risk medication prescribing. Methods:Physicians in Ontario, Canada, who signed up for and accessed the audit and feedback report were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing goal priority, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and intention in relation to the three targeted behaviours (adjusting prescribing of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants) and a control behaviour (adjusting statin prescribing). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to identify predictors of intention. We also conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals in relation to appropriately adjusting prescribing of the medications included in the report: analysis was informed by the framework analysis method. Results:Thirty-three of 89 (37%) physicians completed the questionnaire. Goal priority was the only significant predictor of intention for each medication type; the greater a priority it was for physicians to appropriately adjust their prescribing, the stronger was their intention to do so. Across five interviews, physicians reported prioritising adjustment of antipsychotic prescribing specifically. This was influenced by negative media coverage of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes, the provincial government's mandate to address antipsychotic prescribing, and by the deprescribing initiatives or best practice routines in place in their nursing homes. Conclusions:Goal priority predicted nursing home physicians' intention to adjust prescribing. Targeting goal priority through implementation interventions therefore has the potential to influence behaviour via increased motivation. Implementation intervention developers should consider the external factors that may drive physicians' prioritization.