Background Management of patients with polypharmacy is challenging, and evidence for beneficial effects of deprescribing interventions is mixed. This study aimed to investigate whether a patient-centred deprescribing intervention of PCPs results in a reduction of polypharmacy, without increasing the number of adverse disease events and reducing the quality of life, among their older multimorbid patients. Methods This is a cluster-randomised clinical study among 46 primary care physicians (PCPs) with a 12 months follow-up. We randomised PCPs into an intervention and a control group. They recruited 128 and 206 patients if ≥60 years and taking ≥five drugs for ≥6 months. The intervention consisted of a 2-h training of PCPs, encouraging the use of a validated deprescribing-algorithm including shared-decision-making, in comparison to usual care. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the number of drugs per patient (dpp) between baseline and after 12 months. Additional outcomes focused on patient safety and quality of life (QoL) measures. Results Three hundred thirty-four patients, mean [SD] age of 76.2 [8.5] years participated. The mean difference in the number of dpp between baseline and after 12 months was 0.379 in the intervention group (8.02 and 7.64; p = 0.059) and 0.374 in the control group (8.05 and 7.68; p = 0.065). The between-group comparison showed no significant difference at all time points, except for immediately after the intervention (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences concerning patient safety nor QoL measures. Conclusion Our straight-forward and patient-centred deprescribing procedure is effective immediately after the intervention, but not after 6 and 12 months. Further research needs to determine the optimal interval of repeated deprescribing interventions for a sustainable effect on polypharmacy at mid- and long-term. Integrating SDM in the deprescribing process is a key factor for success. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, prospectively registered ISRCTN16560559 Date assigned 31/10/2014. The Prevention of Polypharmacy in Primary Care Patients Trial (4P-RCT).

Background Polypharmacy is an increasing problem, leading to increased morbidity and mortality, especially in older, multimorbid patients. Consequently, there is a need for reduction of polypharmacy. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes, beliefs, and concerns towards deprescribing among older, multimorbid patients with polypharmacy who chose not to pursue at least one of their GP’s offers to deprescribe. Methods Exploratory study using telephone interviews among patients of a cluster-randomized study in Northern Switzerland. The interview included a qualitative part consisting of questions in five pre-defined key areas of attitudes, beliefs, and concerns about deprescribing and an open explorative question. The quantitative part consisted of a rating of pre-defined statements in these areas. Results Twenty-two of 87 older, multimorbid patients with polypharmacy, to whom their GP offered a drug change, did not pursue all offers. Nineteen of these 22 were interviewed by telephone. The 19 patients were on average 76.9 (SD 10.0) years old, 74% female, and took 8.9 (SD 2.6) drugs per day. Drugs for acid-related disorders, analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs were the three most common drug groups where patient involvement and the shared-decision-making (SDM) process led to the joint decision to not pursue the GPs offer. Eighteen of 19 patients fully trusted their GP, 17 of 19 participated in SDM even before this study and 8 of 19 perceived polypharmacy as a substantial burden. Conservatism/inertia and fragmented medical care were the main barriers towards deprescribing. No patient felt devalued as a consequence of the deprescribing offer. Our exploratory findings were supported by patients’ ratings of predefined statements. Conclusion We identified patient involvement in deprescribing and coordination of care as key issues for deprescribing among older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. GPs concerns regarding patients’ devaluation should not prevent them from actively discussing the reduction of drugs. Trial registration ISRCTN16560559 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0953-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundFaced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient–GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other’s priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs’ ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients.MethodsData on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models.ResultsIn 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient–GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement.ConclusionGPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients’ perspectives into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0757-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMultiple chronic health conditions are leading to multiple treatment procedures and polypharmacy. Prioritizing treatment according to patients’ needs and preferences may be helpful for deprescribing. Thus, for improving health care, it is crucial for general practitioners (GPs) to perceive the chief complaints (CCs) of patients. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the patient–provider concordance of CCs and the secondary aim was to investigate the concordance between CCs and diagnosis, in a sample of Swiss multimorbid patients.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional analysis based on a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) among 46 GPs, recruited between March 2015 to July 2016, and 334 multimorbid patients (≥60 years taking ≥5 drugs for at least 6 months) in Northern Switzerland was performed. CCs listed by GPs and by patients (n=128) were classified according to the International Classification of Primary Care, version 2 (ICPC-2) coding system on chapter and component level and defined as concordant if ICPC-2 codes of patients and GPs were identical. Concordance was classified into full, moderate or low, depending on the ranking of patients’ CCs on GPs’ list. As secondary outcome, we compared patients’ CCs to GPs’ diagnosis. Statistics included descriptive measures and a multivariate regression analysis of factors that are modifying concordance.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 76.9 (SD 8.1) years, where 38% were male, taking 7.9 (SD 2.6) drugs on the long term. The most frequent complaint was pain. Concordance of the CC was given in 101/128 (78.9%) on the ICPC-2 chapter level, whereby 86/128 (67.2%) showed full, 8/128 (6.3%) moderate and 7/128 (5.5%) low concordance; 27/128 (21.1%) were discordant. Concordance between CCs and diagnosis was 53.6%. Concordance increased with the intensity of the CC rated by patients (OR 1.48, CI 1.13–1.94, P<0.001). The younger age and higher intake of drugs were significantly associated with an increased concordance between CCs and diagnosis.ConclusionA majority of GPs perceive the CCs of the multimorbid patients correctly, but there is room for improvement.

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications.

No abstract

Aim Management of diabetes care can be affected by COVID-19 pandemic control measures. This study aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic, during 17.03.2020–16.03.2021, on quality outcomes of diabetes care in general practice in Switzerland. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, diabetes mellitus patients (≥ 18 years) with at least one consultation at a general practitioner, during 17.03.2018–16.03.2019 (cohort 1) and 17.03.2019–16.03.2020 (cohort 2) were included and followed-up for two years. Quality indicators and outcomes of diabetes care, at patient and practitioner level, were compared before and during the pandemic. Logistic regression was performed to identify patient’s risk factors for dropout from follow-up. Results Data from 191 practices, 23,903 patients, cohort 1 and 25,092 patients, cohort 2, were analyzed. The fraction of patients lost to follow-up, attributable to the pandemic, was 28% (95% confidence interval: 25%, 30%). During the pandemic, compared to the previous year, regular measurement of weight, HbA1c, blood pressure and serum creatinine were less frequent and less patients per practitioner reached HbA1c and blood pressure target outcomes. Factors associated with continuity of care during the pandemic were: patient age 41–80 years, longer diabetes duration, diagnosis of hypertension or dyslipidemia, influenza vaccination during the last year. Risk factors for dropout were age > 80 and receiving only insulin as anti-diabetic medication. Conclusion A considerable quality reduction in diabetes mellitus care could be observed during the pandemic. Though the most vulnerable patients were not the most affected by the pandemic, key factors that might reduce dropout from follow-up were identified.

BackgroundInappropriate medication and polypharmacy increase morbidity, hospitalisation rate, costs and mortality in multimorbid patients. At hospital discharge of elderly patients, polypharmacy is often even more pronounced than at admission. However, the optimal discharge strategy in view of sustained medication appropriateness remains unclear. In particular, unreflectingly switching back to the pre-hospitalisation medication must be avoided. Therefore, both the patients and the follow-up physicians should be involved in the discharge process. In this study, we aim to test whether a brief medication review which takes the patients’ priorities into account, combined with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge, leads to sustained medication appropriateness and extends readmission times among elderly multimorbid patients.MethodsThe study is designed as a two-armed, double-blinded, cluster-randomised trial, involving 42 senior hospital physicians (HPs) with their junior HPs and 2100 multimorbid patients aged 60 years or older.Using a randomised minimisation strategy, senior HPs will be assigned to either intervention or control group. Following instructions of the study team, the senior HPs in the intervention group will teach their junior HPs how to integrate a simple medication review tool combined with a defined communication strategy into their ward’s discharge procedure. The untrained HPs in the control group will provide data on usual care, and their patients will be discharged following usual local routines.Primary outcome is the time until readmission within 6 months after discharge, and secondary outcomes cover readmission rates, number of emergency and GP visits, classes and numbers of drugs prescribed, proportions of potentially inappropriate medications, and the patients’ quality of life after discharge. Additionally, the characteristics of both the HPs as well as the patients will be collected before the intervention. Process evaluation outcomes will be assessed parallel to the ongoing core study using qualitative research methods.DiscussionSo far, interventions to reduce polypharmacy are still scarce at the crucial interface between HPs and GPs. To our knowledge, this trial is the first to analyse the combination of a brief deprescribing intervention with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge and in the early post-discharge period.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN18427377. Registered 11 January 2018Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0839-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.