AIMThe aim of the present study was to explore the impact of strategies to reduce polypharmacy on mortality, hospitalization and change in number of drugs. METHODSSystematic review and meta-analysis: a systematic literature search targeting patients ≥65 years with polypharmacy (≥4 drugs), focusing on patient-relevant outcome measures, was conducted. We included controlled studies aiming to reduce polypharmacy. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated study quality. RESULTSTwenty-five studies, including 10 980 participants, were included, comprising 21 randomized controlled trials and four nonrandomized controlled trials. The majority of the included studies aimed at improving quality or the appropriateness of prescribing by eliminating inappropriate and non-evidence-based drugs. These strategies to reduce polypharmacy had no effect on all-cause mortality (odds ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.84, 1.23). Only single studies found improvements, in terms of reducing the number of hospital admissions, in favour of the intervention group. At baseline, patients were taking, on average, 7.4 drugs in both the intervention and the control groups. At follow-up, the weighted mean number of drugs was reduced (À0.2) in the intervention group but increased (+0.2) in controls. CONCLUSIONSThere is no convincing evidence that the strategies assessed in the present review are effective in reducing polypharmacy or have an impact on clinically relevant endpoints. Interventions are complex; it is still unclear how best to organize and implement them to achieve a reduction in inappropriate polypharmacy. There is therefore a need to develop more effective strategies to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy and to test them in large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials on effectiveness and feasibility. British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyBr J Clin Pharmacol (2016) 82 532-548 532

BackgroundDespite numerous evidences for the positive effect of community pharmacists on health care, interprofessional collaboration of pharmacists and general practitioners is very often limited. Though highly trained, pharmacists remain an underutilised resource in primary health care in most western countries. This qualitative study aims at investigating pharmacists’ and general practitioners’ views on barriers to interprofessional collaboration in the German health care system.MethodsA total of 13 narrative in-depth interviews, and two focus group discussions with 12 pharmacists and general practitioners in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a predominantly rural region of North-Eastern Germany, were conducted. The interviews aimed at exploring general practitioners’ and pharmacists’ attitudes, views and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. At a second stage, two focus group discussions were performed. Fieldwork was carried out by a multi-professional team. All interviews and focus group discussions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. The constant comparative method of analysis from grounded theory was applied to the data.ResultsThere are three main findings: First, mutual trust and appreciation appear to be important factors influencing the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Second, in light of negative personal experiences, pharmacists call for a predefined, clear and straightforward way to communicate with physicians. Third, given the increasing challenge to treat a rising number of elderly patients with chronic conditions, general practitioners desire competent support of experienced pharmacists.ConclusionsOn the ground of methodological triangulation the findings of this study go beyond previous investigations and are able to provide specific recommendations for future interprofessional collaboration. First, interventions and initiatives should focus on increasing trust, e.g. by implementing multi-professional local quality circles. Second, governments and health authorities in most countries have been and still are reluctant in advancing political initiatives that bring together physicians and pharmacists. Proactive lobbying and empowerment of pharmacists are extremely important in this context. In addition, future physician and pharmaceutical training curricula should focus on comprehensive pharmacist-physician interaction at early stages within both professional educations and careers. Developing and fostering a culture of continued professional exchange and appreciation is one major challenge of future policy and research.

BackgroundMultimorbidity is increasing in aging populations with a corresponding increase in polypharmacy as well as inappropriate prescribing. Depending on definitions, 25-50 % of patients aged 75 years or older are exposed to at least five drugs. Evidence is increasing that polypharmacy, even when guidelines advise the prescribing of each drug individually, can potentially cause more harm than benefit to older patients, due to factors such as drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. Several approaches reducing polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing have been proposed, but evidence showing a benefit of these measures regarding clinically relevant endpoints is scarce. There is an urgent need to implement more effective strategies. We therefore set out to develop an evidence-based electronic decision support (eDS) tool to aid physicians in reducing inappropriate prescribing and test its effectiveness in a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial.MethodsThe “Polypharmacy in chronic diseases–Reduction of Inappropriate Medication and Adverse drug events in older populations” (PRIMA)-eDS tool is a tool comprising an indication check and recommendations for the reduction of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing based on systematic reviews and guidelines, the European list of inappropriate medications for older people, the SFINX-database of interactions, the PHARAO-database on adverse effects, and the RENBASE-database on renal dosing. The tool will be evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 325 general practitioners (GPs) and around 3500 patients across five study centres in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Italy. GP practices will be asked to recruit 11 patients aged 75 years or older who are taking at least eight medications and will be cluster-randomized after completion of patient recruitment. Intervention GPs will have access to the PRIMA-eDS tool, while control GPs will treat their patients according to current guidelines (usual care) without access to the PRIMA-eDS tool. After an observation time of 2 years, intervention and control groups will be compared regarding the primary composite endpoint of first non-elective hospitalization or death.DiscussionThe principal hypothesis is that reduction of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing can improve the clinical composite outcome of hospitalization or death. A positive result of the trial will contribute substantially to the improvement of care in multimorbidity. The trial is necessary to investigate not only whether the reduction of polypharmacy improves outcome, but also whether GPs and patients are willing to follow the recommendations of the PRIMA-eDS tool.Trial registrationThis trial has been registered with Current Controlled Trials Ltd. on 31 July 2014 (ISRCTN10137559).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1177-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective The relevance of communication in medical education is continuously increasing. At the Medical Faculty of Hamburg, the communication curriculum was further developed and optimized during this project. This article aims to describe the stakeholders’ perceived challenges and supporting factors in the implementation and optimization processes. Methods The initial communication curriculum and its development after a one-year optimization process were assessed with a curricular mapping. A SWOT analysis and group discussions were carried out to provide information on the need for optimization and on challenges the different stakeholders faced. Results The curricular mapping showed that the communication curriculum is comprehensive, coherent, integrated and longitudinal. In both the implementation and the project-related optimization processes, support from the dean, cooperation among all stakeholders and structural prerequisites were deemed the most critical factors for successfully integrating communication content into the curriculum. Conclusion The initiative and support of all stakeholders, including the dean, teachers and students, were crucial for the project’s success. Practice implications Although the implementation of a communication curriculum is recommended for all medical faculties, their actual implementation processes may differ. In a “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach, all stakeholders should be continuously involved in the process to ensure successful integration.