Internet & Web

Page 2018 A concept analysis of deprescribing medications in older people.pdf

Page 2018 A concept analysis of deprescribing medications in older people.pdf
of 17
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E A concept analysis of deprescribing medications in older people Amy Page, MClinPharm, GradCertHPEd, BPharm, BHSci, AdvPracPharm 1  , Rhonda Clifford, PhD, FPS 1  ,Kathleen Potter, MBChB, PhD, FRACGP 2  , Christopher Etherton-Beer, MBBS GradCertHPEd, PhD, FRACP 1 1 School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia2 Westland Medical Centre, Hokitika, New Zealand Abstract Aim:  Deprescribing is an increasingly common term in the literature, although no speci 󿬁 c accepted de 󿬁 nition exists. We aimed toclarify the concept of deprescribing as used in research and clinical practice. Methods:  Deprescribing was examined using the eight-step Walker and Avant method of concept analysis that consisted of: (i) con-cept selection; (ii) determining the purpose of the analysis; (iii) identifying uses of the concept; (iv) determining the critical attributes;(v) identifying the model case; (vi) identifying borderline and contrary cases; (vii) identifying antecedents and consequences; and(viii) de 󿬁 ning empirical referents. A literature search was conducted on the word de?prescri * . Results:  We identi 󿬁 ed seven critical attributes: withdrawing medications, de-escalation, intended outcomes, structured and iterativeprocess, intervention, risk to bene 󿬁 t, and patient-centred care. Deprescribing antecedents were identi 󿬁 ed as changing health, chang-ing goals for health care, and polypharmacy. Deprescribing consequences identi 󿬁 ed were compliance, health outcomes, mortalityand cost, and possibility for adverse drug withdrawal events to occur. We used the model case, borderline and contrary cases andempirical referents to illustrate the concept of deprescribing. Conclusions:  Deprescribing is a term used with varying degrees of precision, and there is no accepted de 󿬁 nition. In this paper, wehave analysed the concept of deprescribing and identi 󿬁 ed it as a patient-centred process of medication withdrawal intended toachieve improved health outcomes through discontinuation of one or more medications that are either potentially harmful or nolonger required. Keywords : deprescribing, concept analysis, discontinuation, medication optimisation. INTRODUCTION Good pharmaceutical care includes prescribing newmedications, adjusting doses of existing medicationsand ceasing medications that are no longer required.Efforts to improve the quality use of medications haveoften focused on the under-use of indicated medica-tions. 1 Once commenced, many medicines are dif  󿬁 cultto withdraw. 2 These factors contribute to polypharmacyas a prevalent issue where two out of three older peopleare exposed to polypharmacy. 3 The magnitude of polypharmacy continues to increase with older peopletoday using an average of two medications more eachday than their counterparts 10 years ago. 4 The increas-ing prevalence and extent of polypharmacy among olderpeople has led to an emerging  󿬁 eld of research toreduce inappropriate polypharmacy.Polypharmacy is commonly used to mean the use of  󿬁 veor more medications, 5 although de 󿬁 nitions of two to 10medications have been used in the literature. 6,7 Discussionsabout reducing polypharmacy often suggest a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy, 8,9 with some authors de 󿬁 ning polypharmacy as the use of more medications than clinically necessary. 10 Other worksuggests that the number of medications is not the bestindicator of prescribing quality in a clinical setting. 11 Epi-demiological research has correlated polypharmacy to arange of undesirable health outcomes, including nutri-tional de 󿬁 ciencies, falls, frailty, impaired cognition,increased hospital admissions and adverse drug reac-tions, 5,6,12  –  14 although it remains unclear whetherpolypharmacy directly causes these negative outcomes oris a marker of multiple failing systems. 15 Researchers have speculated that reducing the totalnumber of regular medications by ceasing inappropriate Address for correspondence:  Amy Page, School of Medicine andPharmacology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy,Crawley 6009, Western Australia, AustraliaE-mail: ©  2018 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia  Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research  (2018)  48,  132 – 148doi: 10.1002/jppr.1361 Official Journal of    the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia  medications might improve health outcomes in olderpeople. 16 Inappropriate medications include those usedwithout a valid indication, therapeutic duplication, inef-fective medications and those where the potential risksoutweigh the intended bene 󿬁 t. 9 Interventions to reducepolypharmacy represent an emerging  󿬁 eld of researchknown as deprescribing. 9 The word  ‘ deprescribing ’  󿬁 rst appeared in the litera-ture in 2003, 17 although the concept of withdrawingmedications was reported in the medical literature about30 years prior. Almost as soon as ef  󿬁 cacious medica-tions to control chronic conditions emerged, clinicians began to question whether medications were indicatedinde 󿬁 nitely or if they could be withdrawn safely. 18  –  20 The ideal treatment duration and potential bene 󿬁 t of ongoing treatment were unclear then 21  –  23 and oftenremain unclear today. 24 No speci 󿬁 c de 󿬁 nition exists for the word  ‘ deprescrib-ing ’  , and the term is used inconsistently. 25  –  27 Two recentpapers proposed de 󿬁 nitions for deprescribing as a pro-cess to reduce medication use, although there is limitedconsensus on what does or does not constitute depre-scribing. 9,26 The inconsistent de 󿬁 nition and conceptuali-sation is increasingly problematic. 26 The inconsistent application of the word  ‘ deprescribing ’ suggests that the concept may be unclear. A  ‘ concept ’  is animportant theoretical component that communicates anabstract theoretical idea. 28 A concept analysis is a processto examine the essential components of a concept. 28 Thisconcept analysis was undertaken to clarify the concept of deprescribing as used in research and clinical practice. METHODS This concept analysis used the Walker and Avantmethod of the Wilsonian version of concept analysisthat entails eight consecutive steps (Figure 1) to providea structural framework that is intended to be pragmaticand procedural. 28 A concept analysis is built on a literature review. Theconcept analysis does not include a critical appraisal of methodological quality of the literature as it is an analy-sis of the concept rather than the evidence. 28 Selection Criteria This concept analysis uses all published peer-reviewedpapers in medical journals that included the base word ‘ deprescribe ’  or its derivatives (e.g. deprescription,deprescribing, deprescriber or deprescribed) in the title,abstract or keywords to ensure the paper focused ondeprescribing. Search Strategy This concept analysis considered all uses of   ‘ deprescrib-ing ’  in peer-reviewed published papers. To identify therelevant papers, a text word search in the MEDLINE,EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL Plus databases was con-ducted in September 2016 using the text worddeprescri *  or de-prescri *  in the title, abstract and key-word  󿬁 elds. The inclusion criteria were that the fullmanuscript must be available in English. Data Collection One author independently scanned the title and abstractof every record retrieved. All available full-text articlesthat used deprescribing were retrieved and investigated.The articles were read with attention to the use of theconcept and to identify patterns in the literature. Thede 󿬁 nitions were imported into nVivo (nVivo 11 forMac) where we undertook a word frequency analysis. 29 RESULTS Our search returned 558 results, which was reduced to191 results after removing duplicates. The full texts of 138 peer-reviewed journal articles were available in Eng-lish and retrieved. Most ( n  =  81) were published in 2015and 2016. Major  󿬁 ndings related to each of the steps inthe Walker and Avant method are summarised (Fig-ure 1). Use and De 󿬁 nition of the Concept Deprescribing Deprescribing was  󿬁 rst introduced to the literature in2003, and its use was becoming more common by 2014when Alldred described it as a new word. 17,30 Earlycommentary by Iyer  et al.  and Alldred  et al.  focused onencouraging the use of the word deprescribing as ameans to link relevant research. 30,31 The need for consis-tent nomenclature to link studies that research medica-tion withdrawal, to facilitate retrieval of relevantresearch was  󿬁 rst raised as an issue in Iyer  et al. ’ s 2008systematic review. 31 It was highlighted again in threemore recent systematic reviews. 2,32,33 Deprescribing was de 󿬁 ned as  ‘ medication withdrawalin older people ’  in a 2008 systematic review of with-drawing individual medications. 31 Le Couteur  et al.  clar-i 󿬁 ed that this was the  ‘ cessation of long-term therapysupervised by a clinician ’ . 34 These concepts were com- bined in a 2015 publication that proposed a de 󿬁 nitionas  ‘ the process of tapering or withdrawing drugs withthe goal of managing polypharmacy and improving ©  2018 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia  Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research  (2018)  48,  132 – 148A concept analysis of deprescribing medications in older people  133  deprescribingconcept.  Step One : Concept selection The purpose of the analysis was determined. The purpose of this concept analysis was an intention to clarify the concept behind the terminology.  Step Two :  Determine the purpose of the analysis The critical attributes are the words and phrases used commonly to describe the characteristics of the concept. The use of the term “deprescribinganalysedby extracting definitions from included recent  papers published in 2015 and 2016. We limited the papers to those published in 2015 and 2016 to ensure we examined the contemporary usage. This selection of recent papers was due to the possibility that the concept has slipped as its use has become more common.  Step Three: Identify all uses of the concept that can be discovered  We identified the critical attributes of deprescribingfrom the literature. This step was undertaken by familiarisationwith the literature by reading and re-reading the papers. Clinical judgment was used to identify the critical attributes from these papers. This was supported by a frequency count of words used to define deprescribingextracted in step three.We identified critical aspects that were central to the concept, as well as those aspects that are desirable, but not critical to the concept. We identified related attributes that can be confused with the concept. The identified attributes were labelleddeprescribing be confused with deprescribing.  Step Four: Determine the critical attributes We reported a model case that was illustrative of deprescribing.  Step Five: Identify model case We reported a borderline case that described some but not all of the critical attributes of the concept.We reported a contrary case that does not represent deprescribing.  Step Six: Identify borderline and contrary cases We identified the reasons for deprescribingas events or factors that were commonly reported to prompt a deprescribingintervention. The consequences that occur as a direct result of the concept were identified. Antecedents and consequences were identified from the literature, and the authors drew on clinical and research experience. The antecedents and consequences were reported and narratively described.  Step Seven:Identify antecedents and consequences Examples of the actual phenomena can provide the clinician with clear and observable phenomena by which to These examples are known as empirical referents. Theoccurrence of the example of a commonly used medication was selected to illustrate the concept.  Step Eight: Define empirical referents Figure 1  Concept analysis  󿬂 ow chart.  Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research  (2018)  48,  132 – 148  ©  2018 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia 134  A. Page  et al.  outcomes ’ . 26 An alternative de 󿬁 nition was also pub-lished in 2015 as  ‘ systematic process of identifying anddiscontinuing medicines where the actual or potentialharms outweigh the bene 󿬁 ts, within the context of anindividual patient ’ s care goals, current level of function-ing, life expectancy, values and preferences ’ . 9 A 2015 systematic review of the de 󿬁 nition of depre-scribing was of particular note for the purpose of con-cept analysis. 26 The various de 󿬁 nitions highlight theinconsistent application of the word, and that little con-sensus exists on the de 󿬁 nition. 9,26 The papers that dode 󿬁 ne deprescribing usually use a synonym of medica-tion withdrawal, discontinuation or cessation. 26 Morethan half of the papers that de 󿬁 ne deprescribing refer toa particular category of medications such as long-term,unsafe or inappropriate medications. 26 It was also com-mon for the de 󿬁 nition to include a reference to plan-ning, supervised withdrawal, multiple steps, or as astructure or process. 26 Only a few papers referred to adesired outcome from deprescribing, and few talkedabout tapering, dose reduction or substitution. 26 Of the 81 articles published since the systematicreview on the de 󿬁 nition, 49 (60%) have included a de 󿬁 -nition of deprescribing (Table 1). Of these articles, 12(15%) have used an srcinal de 󿬁 nition of the word. Themost common de 󿬁 nition ( n  =  10, 12%) was the one pro-posed by Scott  et al. : 9 ‘ systematic process of identifyingand reducing or discontinuing drugs in instances inwhich existing or potential harms outweigh existing orpotential bene 󿬁 ts, taking into account the patient ’ s medi-cal status, current level of functioning, and values andpreference ’ . A similar number of papers ( n  =  8, 10%)referenced the de 󿬁 nition by Reeve  et al. : 26 ‘ process of tapering or withdrawing drugs with the goal of manag-ing polypharmacy and improving outcomes ’ . Multiplepapers ( n  =  4, 5%) referenced Woodward ’ s 17 srcinalpaper to suggest that it was a process of medicationwithdrawal, although Woodward ’ s original paper didnot propose a precise de 󿬁 nition. Attributes of deprescribing We identi 󿬁 ed seven critical attributes for deprescribing.The critical attributes we identi 󿬁 ed were: withdrawingmedications, polypharmacy de-escalation, appropriatemedication use, intended outcomes, patient-centred care,active intervention, and a structured and iterativeprocess. Withdrawing medications  is the most common attributeassociated with deprescribing. 9,16,17 Deprescribing refersto the withdrawal of regular medications, rather thanstopping a medication that was only ever intended to beadministered short term or infrequently. 35 Polypharmacy de-escalation  can be a driver to depre-scribe as it can be an intervention undertaken to reduceor manage polypharmacy. Health professional motiva-tion to reduce polypharmacy is often related to a desireto reduce the perceived negative implications correlatedto polypharmacy.Consumer drivers to de-escalate polypharmacy could be due to patient perception that they are taking manymedications, and this interferes with adherence orcauses distress. 36,37 Polypharmacy is not a reliable indi-cator of consumer drivers to reduce and withdraw inap-propriate medications, as the consumer desire todeprescribe has been shown in both people who do anddo not use polypharmacy. 38  Appropriate medication use  is an attribute as it focuseson the reduction and withdrawal of inappropriate medi-cations. 9 Medications targeted for deprescribing inter-ventions are those that are not underpinned by acurrent indication, are inappropriate, inconsistent withthe patient ’ s care goals, and those where actual sideeffects outweigh the potential bene 󿬁 ts. 39 Further, somemedications to prevent future serious events may havetime to bene 󿬁 t that is longer than the person ’ s antici-pated prognosis. 40 Deprescribing does not deny people potentially bene- 󿬁 cial treatment. 9 It is possible that by reducing overallmedication use through deprescribing, the deprescribingintervention may improve the willingness of prescribersto prescribe indicated medications at a later date. Intended outcome  of deprescribing is a critical attribute.Deprescribing is a purposeful activity. 9 It is undertakenwith the intent to improve health outcomes, managepolypharmacy or withdraw medications where actualside effects outweigh the potential bene 󿬁 t. 35 The inten-tion to achieve a bene 󿬁 cial outcome distinguishes depre-scribing from acts such as the health professionalomitting an indicated medication or the consumer beingnon-compliant with a prescribed therapy. Patient-centred care  is critical to deprescribing. Depre-scribing recognises that the appropriateness and useful-ness of any speci 󿬁 c medication can change as healthand life goals change. Each particular individual needsto be involved in decisions about their care. 41 Medico-legal concerns are an identi 󿬁 ed barrier to deprescrib-ing, 42  but this is less signi 󿬁 cant when undertaken aspart of a shared-decision. 41 Deprescribing should beconsidered from both a patient-centred ethical perspec-tive as well as a clinical perspective. 43 Deprescribing is a variation from the status quo andis thus perceived as an  active intervention . 2,39 This per-ception of deprescribing as an active intervention differ-entiates it from simply omitting a medication withoutcareful consideration. ©  2018 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia  Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research  (2018)  48,  132 – 148A concept analysis of deprescribing medications in older people  135  Table 1  De 󿬁 nitions of deprescribing published in 2015  –  2016AuthorArticletype De 󿬁 nitionDe 󿬁 nitioncitedAilabouni et al. 77 OriginalresearchProcess of reducing or discontinuing medicines that are unnecessary or deemed harmful  5,54 Ailabouni et al. 78 OriginalresearchProcess of safely reducing/discontinuing unnecessary/harmful medicines, has the potential toreduce polypharmacy, inappropriate medicine use and greatly improve health outcomes 26,54 Akinbolade et al. 79 Review Process of optimisation of medication regimens through cessation of potentially inappropriateor unnecessary medicationsNoneAnderson et al. 80 Review Systematic process of identifying and discontinuing the use of medicines where the actual orpotential harms outweigh the bene 󿬁 ts, giving due consideration to an individual patient ’ scare goals, current level of functioning, life expectancy, values and preferences 9 Anderson  et al. 42 Review Systematic process of identifying and discontinuing medicines where the actual or potentialharms outweigh the bene 󿬁 ts, within the context of an individual patient ’ s care goals, currentlevel of functioning, life expectancy, values and preferences 9 Andreassen et al. 81 Review Process of withdrawal of an inappropriate medication, supervised by a healthcare professionalwith the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcome 26 Barras  et al. 82 Review To help reduce unnecessary polypharmacy and reduce the potential for drug-related harm,particularly in the elderly population, who are at risk of adverse drug eventsNoneBemben 83 Review Systematic process of identifying and discontinuing drugs in instances in which existing orpotential harms outweigh existing or potential bene 󿬁 ts within the context of an individualpatient ’ s care goals, current level of functioning, life expectancy, values, and preferences 9 Brandt 84 Review Process of identifying and discontinuing drugs that could potentially harm rather than bene 󿬁 t a patientNoneConklin  et al. 85 Review Stop or decrease doses of medications causing problems or that are no longer needed NoneDisalvo  et al. 86 SystematicreviewProcess of tapering or withdrawing drugs with the goal of managing polypharmacy andimproving outcomes 26 Farrell  et al. 87 Review Planned and supervised process of dose reduction or stopping of medication(s) that may be causing harm or are no longer providing bene 󿬁 tNoneFarrell  et al. 88 OriginalresearchAct of tapering, reducing or stopping a medication  31,89,90 Galazzi  et al. 91 OriginalresearchProcess of optimisation of medication regimens through the supervised withdrawal of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) 5,17,26 Gupta andCahill 92 Review Systematic process of identifying and reducing or discontinuing drugs in instances inwhich existing or potential harms outweigh existing or potential bene 󿬁 ts, taking intoaccount the patient ’ s medical status, current level of functioning, and values and preference 9  Jansen  et al. 41 Review Medication withdrawal NoneKalogianis et al. 38 OriginalresearchSystematic process of ceasing medications, and it has been proposed as a way to approachthe problem of inappropriate polypharmacy 27 Linsky  et al. 93 OriginalresearchSystematic process of identifying and discontinuing drugs in instances in which existing orpotential harms outweigh existing or potential bene 󿬁 ts within the context of an individualpatient ’ s care goals, current level of functioning, life expectancy, values and preferences.Deprescribing is part of the good prescribing continuum [and is] not about denyingeffective treatment to eligible patients 9 MacMillan et al. 94 OriginalresearchSystematic process of stopping ineffective medications to reduce polypharmacy  9 Mudge  et al. 95 OriginalresearchRational withdrawal (including discontinuing or tapering) of inappropriate medications toreduce polypharmacy 89,96 Ni Chroinin et al. 97 OriginalresearchSupervised tapering or cessation of drugs, aiming to minimise inappropriate polypharmacyand improve patient outcomes 30 Oliveira  et al. 98 OriginalresearchWithdrawal of drugs with limited bene 󿬁 t given the evolution of the clinical situation  99 Page  et al. 32 SystematicreviewProcess of withdrawal of inappropriate medication, supervised by a healthcare professionalwith the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes 26 Page  et al. 39 OriginalresearchOptimise medicine use and improve function in older people by reducing the number of potentially harmful or inappropriate medicines prescribedPage  et al. 24 Review Process of withdrawal of inappropriate medication, supervised by a healthcare professionalwith the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes 26  Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research  (2018)  48,  132 – 148  ©  2018 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia 136  A. Page  et al.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!