Stakeholder perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy and prescribing cascades: a qualitative study

Author:

Jennings Aisling A1ORCID,Doherty Ann Sinéad1,Clyne Barbara2,Boland Fiona3456,Moriarty Frank7ORCID,Fahey Tom34,Hally Larry8,Kennelly Seán P91011,Wallace Emma1

Affiliation:

1. Department of General Practice, University College Cork , Cork , Ireland

2. Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , Dublin , Ireland

3. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research , Department of General Practice, , Dublin , Ireland

4. RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , Department of General Practice, , Dublin , Ireland

5. Data Science Centre , School of Population Health, , Dublin , Ireland

6. RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , School of Population Health, , Dublin , Ireland

7. School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , Dublin , Ireland

8. Older People’s Council , Clare , Ireland

9. Department of Medical Gerontology , School of Medicine, , Dublin , Ireland

10. Trinity College Dublin , School of Medicine, , Dublin , Ireland

11. Department of Age-related Healthcare, Tallaght University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Problematic polypharmacy is the prescribing of five or more medications potentially inappropriately. Unintentional prescribing cascades represent an under-researched aspect of problematic polypharmacy and occur when an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is misinterpreted as a new symptom resulting in the initiation of a new medication. The aim of this study was to elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy, with a focus on prescribing cascades. Methods qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with predefined key stakeholder groups. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. Results Thirty-one stakeholders were interviewed: six patients, two carers, seven general practitioners, eight pharmacists, four hospital doctors, two professional organisation representatives and two policymakers. Three main themes were identified: (i) ADRs and prescribing cascades—a necessary evil. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) expressed concern that experiencing an ADR would negatively impact patients’ confidence in their doctor. However, patients viewed ADRs pragmatically as an unpredictable risk. (ii) Balancing the risk/benefit tipping point. The complexity of prescribing decisions in the context of polypharmacy made balancing this tipping point challenging. Consequently, HCPs avoided medication changes. (iii) The minefield of medication reconciliation. Stakeholders, including patients and carers, viewed medication reconciliation as a perilous activity due to systemic communication deficits. Conclusion Stakeholders believed that at a certain depth of polypharmacy, the risk that a new symptom is being caused by an existing medication becomes incalculable. Therefore, in the absence of harm, medication changes were avoided. However, medication reconciliation post hospital discharge compelled prescribing decisions and was seen as a high-risk activity by stakeholders.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3