Skip to main content
Log in

Iterative Development of Clinician Guides to Support Deprescribing Decisions and Communication for Older Patients in Hospital: A Novel Methodology

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background/Objectives

Medication review is an important component of the management of older hospital patients. Deprescribing (supervised withdrawal of inappropriate medicines) is one outcome of review. This study aimed to iteratively develop and test the usability of deprescribing guides, which support multidisciplinary clinicians to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older inpatients.

Methods

Deprescribing guides for hospital clinicians were developed using a novel mixed-methods, ten-step process. Iterative development and usability testing were applied. This included content development through review of the literature; expert consensus through five rounds of feedback using a modified Delphi approach; and usability testing by 16 multidisciplinary hospital clinicians on hypothetical clinical scenarios involving observations, semi-structured interviews, and administration of the System Usability Scale.

Results

This novel process was used to develop deprescribing guides that facilitate implementation of evidence on deprescribing in routine hospital care. The guides present evidence-based information in a format that aligns with workflows of multidisciplinary hospital clinicians. The guides were adapted for various clinical roles to navigate efficiently to suit differing workflow needs. Guides include unique communication support in the form of “preferred language”. Clinicians can use the “preferred language” to apply the evidence to the individual patient and relay decisions between health providers and with patients/carers. The total System Usability Scale score was 80.6 ± 2.0 (mean ± standard error of the mean), indicating excellent usability. Guides have been developed using consistent format for nine medication classes that are common targets for deprescribing and are publicly available.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a novel approach to the development and implementation of evidence-based recommendations that support deprescribing in routine hospital care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hilmer SN, Gnjidic D. The effects of polypharmacy in older adults. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85(1):86–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2008.224 (Epub 2008/11/28 PubMed PMID: 19037203).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyd C, Smith CD, Masoudi FA, Blaum CS, Dodson JA, Green AR, et al. Decision making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: executive summary for the American Geriatrics Society Guiding Principles on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):665–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15809 (Epub 2019/01/22 PubMed PMID: 30663782).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Long J, Hilmer S. A systematic review of the emerging definition of ‘deprescribing’ with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(6):1254–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12732 (Epub 2016/03/24 PubMed PMID: 27006985; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4693477).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Mahony D, Gudmundsson A, Soiza RL, Petrovic M, Jose Cruz-Jentoft A, Cherubini A, et al. Prevention of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy: the SENATOR* randomized controlled clinical trial. Age Ageing. 2020;49(4):605–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa072 (Epub 2020/06/03 PubMed PMID: 32484850).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Farrell B, Conklin J, Dolovich L, Irving H, Maclure M, McCarthy L, et al. Deprescribing guidelines: an international symposium on development, implementation, research and health professional education. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019;15(6):780–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.010 (Epub 2018/09/23. PubMed PMID: 30241875).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Page AT, Clifford RM, Potter K, Schwartz D, Etherton-Beer CD. The feasibility and effect of deprescribing in older adults on mortality and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(3):583–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Reeve E, Low LF, Hilmer SN. Attitudes of older adults and caregivers in Australia toward deprescribing. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(6):1204–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15804 (Epub 2019/02/14 PubMed PMID: 30756387).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reeve E, Wolff JL, Skehan M, Bayliss EA, Hilmer SN, Boyd CM. Assessment of attitudes toward deprescribing in older medicare beneficiaries in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1673–80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4720 (Epub 2018/10/17 PubMed PMID: 30326004; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6583614).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Jansen J, Naganathan V, Carter SM, McLachlan AJ, Nickel B, Irwig L, et al. Too much medicine in older people? Deprescribing through shared decision making. BMJ. 2016;353:i2893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2893 (PubMed PMID: 27260319).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alhawassi TM, Krass I, Bajorek BV, Pont LG. A systematic review of the prevalence and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in the elderly in the acute care setting. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:2079–86. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S71178 (PubMed PMID: 25489239; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4257024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Rutten G, Mokkink H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317(7162):858–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ. 2005;331(7517):631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brożek J, et al. Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moriarty F, Pottie K, Dolovich L, McCarthy L, Rojas-Fernandez C, Farrell B. Deprescribing recommendations: an essential consideration for clinical guideline developers. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019;15(6):806–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.014 (PubMed PMID: 30241877 Epub 2018/09/23).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farrell B, Pottie K, Rojas-Fernandez CH, Bjerre LM, Thompson W, Welch V. Methodology for developing deprescribing guidelines: using evidence and GRADE to guide recommendations for deprescribing. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161248 (PubMed PMID: 27517450; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC498263. Epub 2016/08/16).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tenni P, Davis J, Lo A, MacKean J, Pollard H, Spiller C, Stanton L, Westbury J. Deprescribing resources. Updated May 2019 [cited 2019]. www.primaryhealthtas.com.au/resources/deprescribing-resources/.

  18. Hilmer SN, Mager DE, Simonsick EM, Cao Y, Ling SM, Windham BG, et al. A drug burden index to define the functional burden of medications in older people. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(8):781–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.8.781 (PubMed PMID: 17452540 Epub 2007/04/25).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sawan M, O’Donnell LK, Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Chen TF, Kelly PJ, et al. The utility of a computerised clinical decision support system intervention in home medicines review: a mixed-methods process evaluation. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.06.010 (PubMed PMID: 32788083 Epub 2020/08/14).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):213–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu145 (PubMed PMID: 25324330; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4339726 Epub 2014/10/18).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson K, Stowasser D, Freeman C, Scott I. Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kouladjian O’Donnell L, Gnjidic D, Nahas R, Bell JS, Hilmer SN. Anticholinergic burden: considerations for older adults. J Pharm Pract Res. 2017;47(1):67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. MIMS Online. 2019. Available at https://www.mims.com.au/index.php/products/mims-online.

  24. Australian Medicines Handbook. Adelaide. Australia: AMH Pty Ltd; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Australian Medicines Handbook Aged Care Companion. Adelaide. Australia: AMH Pty Ltd; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  26. eTG complete [digital]. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited; 2019. https://www.tg.org.au.

  27. Baysari MT, Duong M, Zheng WY, Nguyen A, Lo S, Ng B, et al. Delivering the right information to the right person at the right time to facilitate deprescribing in hospital: a mixed methods multisite study to inform decision support design in Australia. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030950. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030950 (PubMed PMID: 31562155; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6773288 Epub 2019/09/29).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jaspers MW, Steen T, Van Den Bos C, Geenen M. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(11–12):781–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kastner M, Estey E, Hayden L, Chatterjee A, Grudniewicz A, Graham ID, et al. The development of a guideline implementability tool (GUIDE-IT): a qualitative study of family physician perspectives. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114–23.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hilmer SN. Deprescribing Tools: Deprescribing Guides Sydney, NSW: NSW Therapeutic Advisory Group (NSW TAG); 2019 [cited April 24 2020]. http://www.nswtag.org.au/deprescribing-tools/.

  32. Farrell B, Tsang C, Raman-Wilms L, Irving H, Conklin J, Pottie K. What are priorities for deprescribing for elderly patients? Capturing the voice of practitioners: a modified Delphi process. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0122246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122246 (PubMed PMID: 25849568; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4388504 Epub 2015/04/08).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Versloot J, Grudniewicz A, Chatterjee A, Hayden L, Kastner M, Bhattacharyya O. Format guidelines to make them vivid, intuitive, and visual: use simple formatting rules to optimize usability and accessibility of clinical practice guidelines. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13(2):52–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gaddis GM, Greenwald P, Huckson S. Toward improved implementation of evidence-based clinical algorithms: clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision rules, and clinical pathways. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):1015–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):607–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jokanovic N, Aslani P, Carter S, Duong M, Gnjidic D, Jansen J, et al. Development of consumer information leaflets for deprescribing in older hospital inpatients: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e033303. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033303 (PubMed PMID: 31831548; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6924866 Epub 2019/12/14).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all study participants, panel reviewers and research staff for their time and contributions. We acknowledge Dr. Brendan Ng and Ms. Linda Koria for their feedback. Forte Inc. is acknowledged for their contribution to graphic design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. N. Hilmer.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work is part of a larger research project entitled “Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy in older inpatients Translational Research Grant 274” funded by NSW Health. DG is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research (NHMRC) Dementia Leadership Fellowship.

Conflict of interest

The authors, MD, AM, AB, NJ, DLC, MB, DG, FB, and SH, declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of this article.

Ethics approval

Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/17/HAWKE/138).

Consent to participate

All participants provided informed written consent.

Consent for publication

The final version of the approved manuscript was approved for submission by all authors.

Availability of data and material

Data are available from the corresponding author upon receipt of reasonable requests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by MD, NJ, MB, and SH. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MD. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The final drafts of the manuscript were written by SH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. SH supervised all aspects of the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 629 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duong, M.H., McLachlan, A.J., Bennett, A.A. et al. Iterative Development of Clinician Guides to Support Deprescribing Decisions and Communication for Older Patients in Hospital: A Novel Methodology. Drugs Aging 38, 75–87 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-020-00820-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-020-00820-8

Navigation