No abstract

Built environment, evidence-based design, healing environments, hospitals, literature review.

No abstract

Purpose:The aim of this study was to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) experienced barriers toward medication reviews in polymedicated, multimorbid patients, and how a clinical pharmacologist with a focus on pharmacotherapy can support the GPs in an outpatient clinic.Design:The study was descriptive and exploratory and had a qualitative design with a phenomenological/hermeneutic orientation for the interviews.Participants:The study comprised 14 interviews with 14 different GPs from the Capital Region of Denmark.Results:Three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) The care of patients With polypharmacy is challenged by the lack of professional dialogue and collaboration between GPs and hospital-based clinical pharmacologists, (2) the relationship between the patients with polypharmacy and the GP is characterized by care and individual considerations, and (3) the culture encourages adding medication and inhibits dialogue about medication withdrawal even for patients with polypharmacy.Conclusion and implications for practice:This study found that the primary barriers toward multimorbid patients with polypharmacy were the need for communication and teamwork with specialists (cardiologists, neurologists, endocrinologists, etc). Often, GPs felt that the specialists at the hospitals were more concerned about following standards and guidelines regarding specific diseases instead of a more holistic patient approach. To improve management of polypharmacy patients, the GPs suggest that a joint force is necessary, a partner-like relationship with greater transparency regarding information transfer, feedback, and shared decision-making, but also more education in the pharmacological field is essential.

Aim: To assess the feasibility of a patient-centered complex intervention for multimorbidity (CIM) based on general practice in collaboration with community health-care centers and outpatient clinics. Methods: Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, diagnoses of two or more of three chronic conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic heart conditions), and a hospital contact during the previous year. The CIM included extended consultations and nurse care manager support in general practice and intensified cross-sectorial collaboration. Elements included a structured care plan based on patients’ care goals, coordination of services, and, if appropriate, shifting outpatient clinic visits to general practice, medication review, referral to rehabilitation, and home care. The acceptability dimension of feasibility was assessed with validated questionnaires, observations, and focus groups. Results: Forty-eight patients were included (mean age 72.2 (standard deviation (SD) 9.5, range 52–89); 23 (48%) were men. Thirty-seven patients had two diseases; most commonly COPD and cardiovascular disease (46%), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular disease (23%), and COPD and diabetes (15%). Eleven (23%) patients had all three conditions. Focus group interviews with patients with multimorbidity identified three main themes: (1) lack of care coordination existed across health-care sectors before the CIM, (2) extended consultations provided better care coordination, and (3) patients want to be involved in planning their treatment and care. In focus groups, health-care professionals discussed two main themes: (1) patient-centered care and (2) culture and organizational change. Completion rates for questionnaires were 98% (47/48). Conclusions: Patients and health-care professionals found the CIM acceptable.

BackgroundWe aimed to synthesise qualitative studies exploring medication-related experiences of polypharmacy among patients with multimorbidity.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature in February 2020 for primary, peer-reviewed qualitative studies about multimorbid patients’ medication-related experiences with polypharmacy, defined as the use of four or more medications. Identified studies were appraised for methodological quality by applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research, and data were extracted and synthesised by the meta-aggregation approach.ResultsWe included 13 qualitative studies, representing 499 patients with polypharmacy and a wide range of chronic conditions. Overall, most Critical Appraisal Skills Programme items were reported in the studies. We extracted 140 findings, synthesised these into 17 categories, and developed five interrelated syntheses: (1) patients with polypharmacy are a heterogeneous group in terms of needing and appraising medication information; (2) patients are aware of the importance of medication adherence, but it is difficult to achieve; (3) decision-making about medications is complex; (4) multiple relational factors affect communication between patients and physicians, and these factors can prevent patients from disclosing important information; and (5) polypharmacy affects patients’ lives and self-perception, and challenges with polypharmacy are not limited to practical issues of medication-taking.DiscussionPolypharmacy poses many challenges to patients, which have a negative impact on quality of life and adherence. Thus, when dealing with polypharmacy patients, it is crucial that healthcare professionals actively solicit individual patients’ perspectives on challenges related to polypharmacy. Based on the reported experiences, we recommend that healthcare professionals upscale communicative efforts and involve patients’ social network on an individualised basis to facilitate shared decision-making and treatment adherence in multimorbidpatients with polypharmacy.

Based on a survey administered in 13 prisons in England & Wales and Norway, as part of a research programme with explicitly comparative aims, this article seeks to address both the relative and absolute dimensions of the Nordic penal exceptionalism thesis. It outlines the consistently more positive results in Norway compared to England & Wales, explaining them primarily with reference to the former’s much higher quality and use of open prisons. At the same time, it emphasizes that, even in an unusually humane prison system, prisoners report considerable pain and frustration. The article also makes the case that comparative analysis should strive to be systematic, but that such comparisons are always imperfect, making methodological transparency all the more essential.

Aim To investigate the effects of a comprehensive medication review intervention on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical outcomes in geriatric outpatients exposed to polypharmacy. Methods Pragmatic, nonblinded, randomized clinical trial with follow‐up after 4 and 13 months. Participants were geriatric outpatients taking ≥9 medicines. The intervention was an additional consultation with a physician focusing on reviewing medication, informing patients about their medicines and increasing cross‐sectoral communication as supplement to and compared with usual care. The primary outcome was change in HRQoL after 4 months measured with the EuroQoL 5‐dimension 5‐level (EQ‐5D‐5L) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were HRQoL after 13 months, mortality, admissions, falls and number of medicines after 4 and 13 months. Results Of 785 eligible patients, 408 were included (age: mean 80.6 [standard deviation 7.22] years; number of medicines: median 12 [interquartile range 10–14]; females 71%). After 4 months, the adjusted between‐group difference in EQ‐5D‐5L index score was 0.066 in favour of the medication consultation (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12, P = .02). After 4 months, two (1%) participants had died in the medication‐consultation group and nine (4%) in the usual‐care group (log‐rank test, P = .045). The medication consultation reduced the number of medicines by 2.0 (15.8%) after 4 months and 1.3 (10.7%) after 13 months. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality or HRQoL after 13 months, and no differences in falls or admissions. Conclusions An additional consultation with medication review and increased communication as supplement to usual geriatric outpatient care improved HRQoL and reduced mortality after 4 months.