Background: Collaborative care approaches between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists have received international recognition for medication optimization and deprescribing efforts. Although specialist providers have been shown to influence deprescribing, their profession so far remains omitted from collaborative care approaches for medication optimization. Similarly, while explorative studies on role perception and collaboration between GPs and pharmacists grow, interaction with specialists for medication optimization is neglected. Our qualitative study therefore aims to explore GPs', community pharmacists' and specialist providers' role perceptions of deprescribing, and to identify interpersonal as well as structural factors that may influence collaborative medication optimization approaches. Method: Seven focus-group discussions with GPs, community pharmacists and community specialists were conducted in Hesse and Lower Saxony, Germany. The topic guide focused on views and experiences with deprescribing with special attention to inter-professional collaboration. We conducted conventional content analysis and conceptualized emerging themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Twenty-six GPs, four community pharmacists and three community specialists took part in the study. The main themes corresponded to the four domains 'Social/professional role and identity' (1), 'Social influences' (2), 'Reinforcement' (3) and´Environmental context and resources' (4) which were further described by beliefs statements, that is inductively developed key messages. For (1), GPs emerged as central medication managers while pharmacists and specialists were assigned confined or subordinated tasks in deprescribing. Social influences (2) encompassed patients' trust in GPs as a support, while specialists and pharmacists were believed to threaten GPs' role and deprescribing attempts. Reinforcements (3) negatively affected GPs' and pharmacists' effort in medication optimization by social reprimand and lacking reward. Environmental context (4) impeded deprescribing efforts by deficient reimbursement and resources as well as fragmentation of care, while informational and gate-keeping resources remained underutilized.

BackgroundPatients with multimorbidity often receive diverse treatments; they are subjected to polypharmacy and to a high treatment burden. Hence it is advocated that doctors set individual health and treatment priorities with their patients. In order to apply such a concept, doctors will need a good understanding of what causes patients to prioritise some of their problems over others. This qualitative study explores what underlying reasons patients have when they appraise their health problems as more or less important.MethodsWe undertook semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 34 patients (aged 70 years and over) in German general practices. Initially, patients received a comprehensive geriatric assessment, on the basis of which they rated the importance of their uncovered health problems. Subsequently, they were interviewed as to why they considered some of their problems important and others not. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsPatients considered their health problems important, if they were severe, constant, uncontrolled, risky or if they restricted daily activities, autonomy and social inclusion. Important problems often correlated with negative feelings. Patients considered problems unimportant, if they were related to a bearable degree of suffering, less restrictions in activities, or psychological adjustment to diseases. Altogether different reasons occurred on the subject of preventive health issues.ConclusionsPatients assess health problems as important if they interfere with what they want from life (life values and goals). Psychological adjustment, by contrast, facilitates a downgrading of the importance. Asking patients with multimorbidity, which health problems are important, may guide physicians to treatment priorities and health problems in need of empowerment.

The aim of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments for drug discontinuation in patients with polypharmacy in the primary care setting.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, 8 guideline databases (AWMF, NICE, NGC, SIGN, NHMRC, CPG, KCE), the Cochrane Library and grey literature (Google) in 2016 and 2017. Two independent researchers screened and analysed data. The drug discontinuation instruments of the included publications were described and classified.Results: We identified 16 relevant publications. Here we found complex algorithms as well as instruments composed of distinct sequential steps. Two guidelines are constructed as electronic web-applications. Instruments revealed diverging emphases on the stages of deprescribing, i.e. preparation, drug evaluation, decisionmaking and implementation. Accordingly, 3 types of instruments emerged: general frameworks, detailed drug assessment tools and comprehensive discontinuation guidelines. Conclusion:Diverse generic instruments exist for different areas of applications in regard to drug discontinuation. However, there is still a need for practical and userfriendly tools that support physicians in communicational aspects, visualise trade-offs and also enhance patient involvement.

Accident and emergency departments (A&E) are facing increasing numbers of patients. While hospitalization rates have remained nearly constant, there has been an increase in outpatient cases. Therefore, at Hannover Medical School (MHH), general practitioners (GPs) have been integrated in A&E. In 2014, all GP contacts within the A&E were evaluated on the basis of hospital routine data and by an additional questionnaire. It contained questions about who initiated the admission, about medical examinations and tests and the patient-related admission decisions. In 2014, GPs in A&E treated 1 646 patients. 76% of the patients were self-referrals and 23% referrals from primary care physicians. The most prevalent diagnoses were back pain, gastroenteritis and hypertension. GPs in A&E did not need any additional specialist involvement in most cases. 81% of the patients were sent home, most of them with the advice to consult their GPs (59%), and 22% to consult a specialist. Repeated visits were scarce. Deploying GPs in A&E represents a promising concept to cope with the rising number of patients in A&E. However, further studies are needed to examine the accuracy of the GPs' diagnosis-related decisions and patient satisfaction.