Abstract Background Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) may not have received as much attention in primary care settings (compared to tertiary hospital and nursing home settings), due to uncertainty about its prevalence in this healthcare setting. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to summarise the prevalence of PIP specific to primary care settings and computed the population attributable risk (PAR) to estimate the impact of PIP in primary care. Method We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and previous review articles for studies related to ‘older persons’, ‘primary care’ and ‘inappropriate prescribing’. Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Multilevel meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates across the included studies, while meta-regression was conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. Results Of the 4,259 articles identified, we included 67 articles with 111 prevalence estimates and a total of 5,054,975 participants. Overall, PIP had a pooled prevalence of 33.3% (95% CI 29.7–37.0%). Based on population attributable risks, PIP explained 7.7–17.3% of adverse outcomes related to older persons in primary care. If current PIP prevalence is halved, 37–79 cases of adverse outcomes may potentially be prevented (per 1,000 adverse outcomes). Conclusions The findings demonstrate the relevance and potential impact of PIP specific to primary care settings. Given the increasingly central role that primary care plays in coordinating healthcare, the findings highlight the need to prioritise PIP intervention in primary care as a key strategy to reduce iatrogenic medication-related harm among older persons in current healthcare system.

PURPOSE Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a common yet preventable medical error among older persons in primary care. It is uncertain whether PIP produces adverse outcomes in this population, however. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to pool the adverse outcomes of PIP specific to primary care. METHOD We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and previous review articles for studies related to "older persons," "primary care," and "inappropriate prescribing." Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool studies with similar PIP criteria and outcome measures. RESULTS Of the 2,804 articles identified, we included 8 articles with a total of 77,624 participants. All included studies had cohort design and low risk of bias. Although PIP did not affect mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05), it was significantly associated with the other available outcomes, including emergency room visits (RR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.00), adverse drug events (RR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66), functional decline (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18), health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference-0.26; 95% CI,-0.36 to-0.16), and hospitalizations (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44). A majority of the pooled estimates had negligible heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis provides consolidated evidence on the wideranging impact of PIP among older persons in primary care. It highlights the need to identify PIP in primary care, calls for further research on PIP interventions in primary care, and points to the need to consider potential implications when deciding on the operational criteria of PIP.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) as the Singapore government escalated containment efforts from DORSCON Orange to Circuit Breaker. NPI include mandatory mask wearing, hand hygiene, social distancing, and closure of schools and workplaces. Considering the similar mode of transmission of COVID-19 and other pathogens related to acute respiratory infections (ARI), the effects of NPI could possibly lead to decreased ARI attendances in the community. This study aims to determine the year-on-year and weekly changes of ARI attendances across a cluster of polyclinics following the implementation of NPI. Methods The effect of the nation-wide measures on the health-seeking behaviour of the study population was examined over three periods: (1) 9 weeks prior to the start of Circuit Breaker (DORSCON Orange period), (2) 8 weeks during the Circuit Breaker, and (3) 9 weeks after easing of Circuit Breaker. Data on ARI attendances for the corresponding periods in 2019 were also extracted for comparison and to assess the seasonal variations of ARI. The average weekly workday ARI attendances were compared with those of the preceding week using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results ARI attendances dropped steadily throughout the study period and were 50–80% lower than in 2019 since Circuit Breaker. They remained low even after Circuit Breaker ended. Positivity rate for influenza-like illnesses samples in the community was 0.0% from the last week of Circuit Breaker to end of study period. Conclusions NPI and public education measures during DORSCON Orange and Circuit Breaker periods appear to be associated with the health-seeking behaviour of the public. Changing levels of perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits and barriers, and widespread visual cues based on the Health Belief Model may account for this change. Understanding the impact of NPI and shifts in the public’s health-seeking behaviour will be relevant and helpful in the planning of future pandemic responses.

Introduction The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising globally including in Singapore. Primary care is the first point of contact for most patients with early stages of CKD. However, several barriers to optimal CKD management exist. Knowing healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) perspectives is important to understand how best to strengthen CKD services in the primary care setting. Integrating a theory-based framework, we explored HCPs’ perspectives on the facilitators of and barriers to CKD management in primary care clinics in Singapore. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of 20 HCPs including 13 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 pharmacist from three public primary care polyclinics, and 4 nephrologists from one referral hospital. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2. Results Numerous facilitators of and barriers to CKD management identified. HCPs perceived insufficient attention is given to CKD in primary care and highlighted several barriers including knowledge and practice gaps, ineffective CKD diagnosis disclosure, limitations in decision-making for nephrology referrals, consultation time, suboptimal care coordination, and lack of CKD awareness and self-management skills among patients. Nevertheless, intensive CKD training of primary care physicians, structured CKD-care pathways, multidisciplinary team-based care, and prioritizing nephrology referrals with risk-based assessment were key facilitators. Participants underscored the importance of improving awareness and self-management skills among patients. Primary care providers expressed willingness to manage early-stage CKD as a collaborative care model with nephrologists. Our findings provide valuable insights to design targeted interventions to enhance CKD management in primary care in Singapore that may be relevant to other countries. Conclusions The are several roadblocks to improving CKD management in primary care settings warranting urgent attention. Foremost, CKD deserves greater priority from HCPs and health planners. Multipronged approaches should urgently address gaps in care coordination, patient-physician communication, and knowledge. Strategies could focus on intensive CKD-oriented training for primary care physicians and building novel team-based care models integrating structured CKD management, risk-based nephrology referrals coupled with education and motivational counseling for patients. Such concerted efforts are likely to improve outcomes of patients with CKD and reduce the ESKD burden.