Impact of Medication Regimen Simplification on Medication Incidents in Residential Aged Care: SIMPLER Randomized Controlled Trial

Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE): protocol for a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines recommend against the routine use of psychotropic medications in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Knowledge brokers are individuals or groups who facilitate the transfer of knowledge into practice. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using knowledge brokers to translate Australia's new Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Psychotropic Medications in People Living with Dementia and in Residential Aged Care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE) trial is a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial. The 12-month trial will be conducted in up to 19 RACFs operated by four Australian aged care provider organisations in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. RACFs will be randomised to receive three levels of implementation strategies (knowledge broker service, pharmacist-led quality use of medications education activities and distribution of the Guidelines and supporting materials) across three medication contexts (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants). Implementation strategies will be delivered by an embedded on-site aged care pharmacist working at a system level across each participating RACF. All RACFs will receive all implementation strategies simultaneously but for different medication contexts. The primary outcome will be a composite dichotomous measure of 6-month RACF-level concordance with Guideline recommendations and good practice statements among people using antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants for changed behaviours. Secondary outcomes will include proportion of residents with Guideline concordant use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants measured at the RACF-level and proportion of residents with psychotropic medication use, hospitalisation, falls, falls with injury, polypharmacy, quality of life, activities of daily living, medication incidents and behavioural incidents measured at the RACF-level.

DISCUSSION

The EMBRACE trial investigates a novel guideline implementation strategy to improve the safe and effective use of psychotropic medications in RACFs. We anticipate that the findings will provide new information on the potential role of knowledge brokers for successful and cost-effective guideline implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623001141639. Registered 6 November 2023 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx .

Provision of a comprehensive medicines review is associated with lower mortality risk for residents of aged care facilities: a retrospective cohort study

Background

no studies have examined the impact of residential medication management review (RMMR, a 24-year government subsidised comprehensive medicines review program) in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) on hospitalisation or mortality.

Objective

to examine associations between RMMR provision in the 6–12 months after RACF entry and the 12-month risk of hospitalisation and mortality among older Australians in RACFs.

Design

retrospective cohort study.

Subjects

individuals aged 65–105 years taking at least one medicine, who entered an RACF in three Australian states between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2015 and spent at least 6 months in the RACF (n = 57,719).

Methods

Cox regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between RMMR provision and mortality. Adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios were estimated for associations between RMMR provision and next (i) emergency department (ED) presentation or unplanned hospitalisation or (ii) fall-related ED presentation or hospitalisation.

Results

there were 12,603 (21.8%) individuals who received an RMMR within 6–12 months of RACF entry, of whom 22.2% (95%CI 21.4–22.9) died during follow-up, compared with 23.3% (95%CI 22.9–23.7) of unexposed individuals. RMMR provision was associated with a lower risk of death due to any cause over 12-months (aHR 0.96, 95%CI 0.91–0.99), but was not associated with ED presentations or hospitalisations for unplanned events or falls.

Conclusions

provision of an RMMR in the 6–12 months after RACF entry is associated with a 4.4% lower mortality risk over 12-months but was not associated with changes in hospitalisations for unplanned events or falls.

Prevalence and patient-rated relevance of complexity factors in medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with polypharmacy

Purpose

To describe the prevalence of complexity factors in the medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with more than five drugs and to evaluate the relevance of these factors for individual patients.

Methods

Data were derived from the HIOPP-6 trial, a controlled study conducted in 9 general practices which evaluated an electronic tool to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment. The prevalence of complexity factors was based on the results of the automated analysis of 139 patients’ medication data. The relevance assessment was based on the patients’ rating of each factor in an interview (48 patients included for analysis).

Results

A median of 5 (range 0–21) complexity factors per medication regimen were detected and at least one factor was observed in 131 of 139 patients. Almost half of these patients found no complexity factor in their medication regimen relevant.

Conclusion

In most medication regimens, complexity factors could be identified automatically, yet less than 15% of factors were indeed relevant for patients as judged by themselves. When assessing complexity of medication regimens, one should especially consider factors that are both particularly frequent and often challenging for patients, such as use of inhalers or tablet splitting.

Trial registration

The HIOPP-6 trial was registered retrospectively on May 17, 2021, in the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-022-03314-1.

Process Evaluation of the SImplification of Medications Prescribed to Long-tErm Care Residents (SIMPLER) Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: A Mixed Methods Study

Complex medication regimens are highly prevalent, burdensome for residents and staff, and associated with poor health outcomes in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The SIMPLER study was a non-blinded, matched-pair, cluster randomized controlled trial in eight Australian RACFs that investigated the one-off application of a structured 5-step implicit process to simplify medication regimens. The aim of this study was to explore the processes underpinning study implementation and uptake of the medication simplification intervention. A mixed methods process evaluation with an explanatory design was undertaken in parallel with the main outcome evaluation of the SIMPLER study and was guided by an established 8-domain framework. The qualitative component included a document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 25 stakeholders (residents, family, research nurses, pharmacists, RACF staff, and a general medical practitioner). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexively thematically content analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative data extracted from key research documents. The SIMPLER recruitment rates at the eight RACFs ranged from 18.9% to 48.6% of eligible residents (38.4% overall). Participation decisions were influenced by altruism, opinions of trusted persons, willingness to change a medication regimen, and third-party hesitation regarding potential resident distress. Intervention delivery was generally consistent with the study protocol. Stakeholders perceived regimen simplification was beneficial and low risk if the simplification recommendations were individualized. Implementation of the simplification recommendations varied between the four intervention RACFs, with simplification implemented at 4-month follow-up for between 25% and 86% of residents for whom simplification was possible. Good working relationships between stakeholders and new remunerated models of medication management were perceived facilitators to wider implementation. In conclusion, the one-off implicit medication simplification intervention was feasible and generally delivered according to the protocol to a representative sample of residents. Despite variable implementation, recommendations to simplify complex regimens were valued by stakeholders, who also supported wider implementation of medication simplification in RACFs.

The FRAIL-NH Scale: Systematic Review of the Use, Validity and Adaptations for Frailty Screening in Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

To investigate frailty prevalence, cross-sectional associations, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and cross-cultural adaptations of the FRAIL-NH scale.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Frail residents living in nursing homes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2015 to June 2021 for primary studies that used the FRAIL-NH scale, irrespective of study designs and publication language.

RESULTS

Overall, 40 studies conducted across 20 countries utilized the FRAIL-NH scale; majority in Australia (n=14), followed by China (n=6), United States (n=3), and Spain (n=3). The scale has been translated and back-translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. Various cut-offs have been used, with ≥2 and ≥6 being the most common cut-offs for frail and most frail, respectively. When defined using these cut-offs, frailty prevalence varied from 15.1-79.5% (frail) to 28.5-75.0% (most frail). FRAIL-NH predicted falls (n=2), hospitalization or length of stay (n=4), functional or cognitive decline (n=4), and mortality (n=9) over a median follow-up of 12 months. FRAIL-NH has been compared to 16 other scales, and was correlated with Fried's phenotype (FP), Frailty Index (FI), and FI-Lab. Four studies reported fair-to-moderate agreements between FRAIL-NH and FI, FP, and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Ten studies assessed the sensitivity and specificity of different FRAIL-NH cut-offs, with ≥8 having the highest sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (82.8%) for classifying residents as frail based on FI, while two studies reported an optimal cut-off of ≥2 based on FI and FP, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In seven years, the FRAIL-NH scale has been applied in 20 countries and adapted into three languages. Despite being applied with a range of cut-offs, FRAIL-NH was associated with higher care needs and demonstrated good agreement with other well-established but more complex scales. FRAIL-NH was predictive of adverse outcomes across different settings, highlighting its value in guiding care for frail residents in nursing homes.