Impact of structured medication reviews on prescribing in English Primary Care: a nationwide observational cohort study
Sheppard, J. P.; Bateman, P. A.; Wright-Drakesmith, C.; Clark, C.; Barnes, R. K.; Clegg, A.; Ford, G. A.; Gadhia, S.; Hinton, W.; Hobbs, F. R.; Jawad, S.; Khunti, K.; Lip, G. Y. H.; de Lusignan, S.; Mant, J.; McCahon, D.; Meza-Torres, B.; Payne, R. A.; Perera-Salazar, R.; Reidy, C.; Seeley, A.; Seidu, S.; Tucker, K.; van der Veen, R.; Williams, M.; McManus, R. J.
Show abstract
ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the impact of structured medication reviews (SMRs), by examining the proportion of eligible patients who received a review in the first two years of the programme, and whether SMRs were associated with changes in prescribing. DesignRetrospective observational cohort study. SettingPatients registered to primary care practices in England contributing data to the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) were included between 1st April 2020 and 30th September 2022. ParticipantsDe-identified data were extracted from the electronic health records of individuals registered to ORCHID practices aged [≥]65 years, prescribed one or more medications and fulfilling the specific eligibility criteria for a SMR. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a review. Further outcomes included the proportion of potentially inappropriate drug combinations corrected following an SMR. The association between SMRs and prescription changes and primary care contacts was examined by matching individuals who received an SMR to individuals who did not receive an SMR, according to age, sex and primary care practice using cumulative density sampling. Analyses were undertaken using adjusted logistic regression. ResultsFrom a total of 635,698 eligible patients, 82,285 patients (12.94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.86% to 13.02%) received at least one SMR during the study observation period. In those prescribed potentially inappropriate drug combinations prior to an SMR, between 12.5% and 40.0% were corrected up to three months later. In matched analyses, SMRs were associated with a significant increase new prescriptions of ACE inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.56, 95%CI 1.35-1.81), statins (aOR 1.78, 95%CI 1.57-2.02), inhaled corticosteroids (aOR 1.19 95%CI 1.05-1.36), opioids (aOR 1.31 95%CI 1.20-1.42), and antidepressants (aOR 1.45 95%CI 1.28-1.63). In those previously prescribed treatment, individuals receiving an SMR were significantly more likely stop ACE inhibitors (aOR 1.37, 95%CI 1.18-1.58), statins (aOR 1.35, 95%CI 1.17-1.56) and antidepressants (antidepressants aOR 1.37 95%CI 1.21-1.56). SMRs were associated with a significant increase in primary care contacts of 0.14 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.16; equivalent to 14 extra patient contacts for every 100 individuals receiving an SMR). ConclusionsSMRs were associated with starting new medications and stopping existing prescriptions compared to usual care. It was unclear if such activity was appropriate or represented improved patient care. Further work is needed to understand if these changes in prescribing improved patient outcomes. What is already known on this topicO_LIInappropriate polypharmacy can expose the most vulnerable patients to decreased quality of life and adverse drug events. C_LIO_LIOutside of trials, studies of pharmacist-led medication reviews undertaken in routine clinical practice have shown little impact on prescribing and patient-centred care. C_LIO_LIStructured medication reviews are a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved clinical intervention to address complex or problematic polypharmacy and were introduced widely in the UK NHS in 2020. C_LI What this study addsO_LIWe found that one in eight eligible patients received a structured medication review during the first two years of the programmes rollout in England. C_LIO_LIStructured medication reviews were associated with an increased likelihood of starting medication in those not previously prescribed treatment, and an increased likelihood of stopping medications in those with existing prescriptions. C_LIO_LIThis analysis was limited by the data available within primary care electronic health records and so it is unclear if the observed changes in prescribing resulted in improvements in patient outcomes C_LI
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Variation in prescription duration for long term conditions: a cohort study in English NHS primary care using OpenPrescribing 95%
- Trends and variation in unsafe prescribing of methotrexate: a cohort study in English NHS primary care. 93%
- Trends and variation in prescribing of suboptimal statin treatment regimes: a cohort study in English primary care 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Medication Clusters at Hospital Discharge and Risk of Adverse Drug Events at 30-days Post-Discharge: A Population-based Cohort Study of Older Adults 95%
- Trends in analgesia prescribing in primary care in Ireland and England between 2014 and 2022 - a repeated cross-sectional study 93%
- People exposed to proton pump inhibitors shortly preceding COVID-19 diagnosis are not at an increased risk of subsequent hospitalizations and mortality: a nation-wide matched cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study 94%
- The Antidepressant Advisor (ADeSS): A Decision Support System for Antidepressant Treatment for Depression in UK primary care – a feasibility study 94%
- How many medications do doctors in primary care use? An observational study of the DU90% indicator in primary care in England. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK 95%
- An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: national validation cohort study in England 93%
- Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID: an OpenSAFELY study using electronic health records 93%
- A mixed-methods evaluation of patients’ views on primary care multi-disciplinary teams in Scotland 91%
- Patients’ perspectives on ecologically sustainable healthcare in general practice 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.