The complexity and heterogeneity of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy renders traditional disease‐oriented guidelines often inadequate and complicates clinical decision making. To address this challenge, guidelines have been developed on multimorbidity or polypharmacy. To systematically analyse their recommendations, we conducted a systematic guideline review using the Ariadne principles for managing multimorbidity as analytical framework. The information synthesis included a multistep consensus process involving 18 multidisciplinary experts from seven countries. We included eight guidelines (four each on multimorbidity and polypharmacy) and extracted about 250 recommendations. The guideline addressed (i) the identification of the target population (risk factors); (ii) the assessment of interacting conditions and treatments: medical history, clinical and psychosocial assessment including physiological status and frailty, reviews of medication and encounters with healthcare providers highlighting informational continuity; (iii) the need to incorporate patient preferences and goal setting: eliciting preferences and expectations, the process of shared decision making in relation to treatment options and the level of involvement of patients and carers; (iv) individualized management: guiding principles on optimization of treatment benefits over possible harms, treatment communication and the information content of medication/care plans; (v) monitoring and follow‐up: strategies in care planning, self‐management and medication‐related aspects, communication with patients including safety instructions and adherence, coordination of care regarding referral and discharge management, medication appropriateness and safety concerns. The spectrum of clinical and self‐management issues varied from guiding principles to specific recommendations and tools providing actionable support. The limited availability of reliable risk prediction models, feasible interventions of proven effectiveness and decision aids, and limited consensus on appropriate outcomes of care highlight major research deficits. An integrated approach to both multimorbidity and polypharmacy should be considered in future guidelines.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to determine the information needs of primary care physicians in Spain and to describe their information-seeking patterns. METHODSThis observational study took place in primary care practices located in Madrid, Spain. Participants were a random stratifi ed sample of 112 primary care physicians. Physicians' consultations were video recorded for 4 hours. Clinical questions arising during the patient visit and the sources of information used within the consultation to answer questions were identifi ed. Physicians with unanswered questions were followed up by telephone 2 weeks later to determine whether their questions had since been answered and the sources of information used. Clinical questions were classifi ed by topic and type of information.RESULTS A total of 3,511 patient consultations (mean length, 7.8 minutes) were recorded, leading to 635 clinical questions (0.18 questions per consultation). The most frequent questions were related to diagnosis (53%) and treatment (26%). The most frequent generic type of questions was "What is the cause of symptom x?" (20.5%). Physicians searched for answers to 22.8% of the questions (9.6% during consultations). The time taken and the success rate in fi nding an answer during a consultation and afterward were 2 minutes (100%) and 32 minutes (75%), respectively.CONCLUSIONS Primary care physicians working in settings where consultations are of short duration have time to answer only 1 in 5 of their questions. Better methods are needed to provide answers to questions that arise in offi ce practice in settings where average consultation time is less than 10 minutes.

Background Virtual communities of practice (vCoPs) facilitate online learning via the exchange of experiences and knowledge between interested participants. Compared to other communities, vCoPs need to overcome technological structures and specific barriers. Our objective was to pilot the acceptability and feasibility of a vCoP aimed at improving the attitudes of primary care professionals to the empowerment of patients with chronic conditions. Methods We used a qualitative approach based on 2 focus groups: one composed of 6 general practitioners and the other of 6 practice nurses. Discussion guidelines on the topics to be investigated were provided to the moderator. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using the ATLAS-ti software. Results The available operating systems and browsers and the lack of suitable spaces and time were reported as the main difficulties with the vCoP. The vCoP was perceived to be a flexible learning mode that provided up-to-date resources applicable to routine practice and offered a space for the exchange of experiences and approaches. Conclusions The results from this pilot study show that the vCoP was considered useful for learning how to empower patients. However, while vCoPs have the potential to facilitate learning and as shown create professional awareness regarding patient empowerment, attention needs to be paid to technological and access issues and the time demands on professionals. We collected relevant inputs to improve the features, content and educational methods to be included in further vCoP implementation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4185-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

Shared decision making (SDM) aims to involve patients in the decisions about their care, considering their preferences, values and concerns about the different treatment options. However, research shows that people with mental health problems have considerable unmet information needs about their condition. This community-based cross-sectional study explores the SDM process and information needs among people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), as an initial step in the design and development of a Patient Decision Aid for this population. Seventy participants completed an online survey with the Control Preference Scale, and questions about the perceived difficulty of past treatment decisions and the use of the Internet for searching for GAD-related information. Most participants preferred an active (42.9%) or collaborative role (41.4%) in the SDM process, and 53% did not perceive their preferred role. Information provided by healthcare professionals was considered insufficient by 28% of the sample, and over 30% reported using the Internet to look for GAD-related information at least once a week or more. The most relevant GAD-related information needs were general information (71.4%), information on self-help groups (65.7%), recommendations on how to face this disorder (61.4%) and information on treatment options (50%). Exploratory analyses showed that patients who perceived an active participation were more likely to search for information frequently (p = 0.038), and those who felt more involved than desired tended to search for more themes (p = 0.049). In summary, the study showed that a considerable percentage of GAD patients have unmet needs related to decision-making participation and information.

Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-thecounter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using metaregression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I 2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.

IntroductionClinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisPlanned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. Scope: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. Population: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). Sample size: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. Intervention: complex intervention eMMa. Follow-up: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. Outcomes: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. Statistical analysis: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationTrial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences.Trial registrationNCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).