Department of General Practice, HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):3225-3237. doi: 10.1111/hex.13630. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
The SPPiRE cluster randomized controlled trial found that a general practitioner (GP)-delivered medication review that incorporated screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP), a brown bag review and a patient priority assessment, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the number of medicines and no significant reduction in PIP. This process evaluation aims to explore the experiences of GPs and patients and the potential for system-wide implementation.
The trial included 51 general practices and 404 participants with multimorbidity aged ≥65 years, prescribed ≥15 medicines. The process evaluation used mixed methods and ran parallel to the trial. Quantitative data was collected from the SPPiRE intervention website and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on medication changes were collected from intervention GPs (18/26) and a purposive sample of intervention patients (27/208) via semi-structured telephone interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using a triangulation protocol.
The analysis generated two themes, intervention implementation and mechanisms of action, and both were underpinned by the theme of context. Intervention delivery varied among practices and 45 patients (28%) had no review, primarily due to insufficient GP time. 80% of reviewed patients had ≥1 PIP identified, 59% had ≥1 problem identified during the brown bag review and 79% had ≥1 priority recorded. The brown bag review resulted in the most deprescription of medications. GPs and patients responded positively to the intervention but most GPs did not engage with the patient priority-setting process. GPs identified a lack of integration into practice software and resources as barriers to future implementation.
The SPPiRE intervention had a small effect in reducing the number of medicines and this was primarily mediated through the brown bag review. The context of resource shortages and deep-seated views around medical decision-making influenced intervention implementation.
Qualitative data on the implementation of the medication review and their wider views on their medicines was collected from older people with multimorbidity through semi-structured telephone interviews.
The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).
SPPiRE 集群随机对照试验发现,由全科医生(GP)进行的药物审查,其中包括潜在不适当处方(PIP)筛查、棕色袋子审查和患者优先级评估,可显著减少药物数量,但 PIP 无显著减少。本过程评估旨在探索全科医生和患者的经验,以及在系统范围内实施的潜力。
该试验包括 51 家全科诊所和 404 名年龄≥65 岁、服用≥15 种药物的共病患者。过程评估采用混合方法,与试验平行进行。从 SPPiRE 干预网站收集定量数据并进行描述性分析。通过半结构化电话访谈,从干预全科医生(26 名中的 18 名)和干预患者(208 名中的 27 名)中收集有关药物变化的定性数据。所有访谈均逐字转录,并使用主题分析进行分析。定性和定量数据使用三角测量协议进行整合。
分析生成了两个主题,干预实施和作用机制,两者都以背景为基础。实践中的干预措施各不相同,45 名患者(28%)没有接受审查,主要是由于全科医生时间不足。80%接受审查的患者有≥1 个 PIP 被识别,59%在棕色袋子审查期间有≥1 个问题被识别,79%有≥1 个优先级被记录。棕色袋子审查导致药物减药最多。全科医生和患者对干预措施反应积极,但大多数全科医生没有参与患者优先排序过程。全科医生发现缺乏整合到实践软件和资源中是未来实施的障碍。
SPPiRE 干预措施在减少药物数量方面的效果较小,这主要是通过棕色袋子审查实现的。资源短缺和对医疗决策的根深蒂固的看法等背景影响了干预措施的实施。
通过半结构化电话访谈,从患有多种疾病的老年人那里收集了关于药物审查实施情况及其对药物的更广泛看法的定性数据。
SPPiRE 试验在 ISRCTN 注册处(ISRCTN8611241)进行了前瞻性注册。