Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Education around medication review and deprescribing: a survey of medical and pharmacy students’ perspectives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research into the practice of medication review is developing across the world in response to the ever-increasing burden of inappropriate polypharmacy. Education, training and support of undergraduates and novice practitioners to equip them to participate in the medication review process could lead to long-term shifts in practice. The purpose of this study was to explore the awareness of pharmacy and medical undergraduates about medication review, deprescribing and polypharmacy, in order to inform improvement strategies. In November 2016, all final-year medical and pharmacy students at a London (UK) university were invited to complete a short questionnaire survey. Qualitative analysis inductively themed free-text comments and quantitative analysis used descriptive statistics to summarize responses, with chi-square tests used to indicate differences between the groups. The overall response rate was 34% (171/500). The terms ‘medication review’ and ‘polypharmacy’ were known to the students, whilst the term ‘deprescribing’ was unfamiliar with no difference between the groups. The term ‘medication review’ meant different things to the groups: pharmacy students suggested a focus on adherence and patient understanding, whilst medical students focused on interactions and whether medicines were still indicated. The groups differed in their perceptions of who they thought undertook reviews, who identifies potentially inappropriate medicines, who makes the final decision to deprescribe and the frequency of medication reviews. Both groups reported that on qualification they would not be comfortable stopping a medicine without discussion with a senior colleague, but would be comfortable prompting a senior colleague to review. Both groups had some awareness of medication review tools. The meaning of the term ‘medication review’ differed between the student groups. While medical students focused on clinical aspects, pharmacy students emphasized patient experience. Both groups anticipated a lack of confidence in deprescribing without senior support, highlighting the need for alignment between education and professional development syllabi in a way that combines the variety of professional perspectives. Prompts by juniors could lead to more medication reviews within existing practice, and may give them invaluable experience in reviewing medicines in their future careers as seniors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

          Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

            Objective To synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults. Design A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. Setting All healthcare settings. Participants Medical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults. Outcomes Prescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults. Results 21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported. Conclusions A multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the emerging definition of 'deprescribing' with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice.

              The aim of this study was to identify what definitions have been published for the term 'deprescribing', and determine whether a unifying definition could be reached. A secondary aim was to uncover patterns between the published definitions which could explain any variation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ther Adv Drug Saf
                Ther Adv Drug Saf
                TAW
                sptaw
                Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2042-0986
                2042-0994
                18 March 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 2042098620909610
                Affiliations
                [1-2042098620909610]Picker Institute Europe, Oxford, UK
                [2-2042098620909610]King’s College London, London, UK, Medicines Optimization, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Northwest London, and Medicines Use and Safety Team, NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service, UK
                [3-2042098620909610]Lead Directorate Pharmacist for Medicine and Research, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK
                [4-2042098620909610]Kings College London, London, UK
                [5-2042098620909610]Care of Older People, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, and Medicines Use and Safety Team, NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service, Middlesex, UK
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2331-0904
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7552-6053
                Article
                10.1177_2042098620909610
                10.1177/2042098620909610
                7081458
                32215198
                0a4b4bad-768b-4f42-b663-ea320e9dc1f9
                © The Author(s), 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 8 October 2018
                : 21 January 2020
                Categories
                The role of de-prescribing in polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2020
                ts1

                deprescribing,education,medication review,polypharmacy,undergraduate

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content658

                Cited by11

                Most referenced authors123