Aim: To develop and pilot an algorithm to select older people for different types of medication review based on their case complexity. Methods: Experts rated complexity of patient cases through a Delphi-consensus method. The case characteristics were included in a regression model predicting complexity to develop a criteria-based algorithm. The algorithm was piloted in four community pharmacies with 38 patients of high and low complexity. Pharmacists conducted medication reviews according to their personal judgment and rated the patients' complexity. Time needed for reviewing and number of interventions (proposed and implemented) were assessed. Feasibility was evaluated with in-depth interviews. Results: We developed the algorithm with 75 cases proceeding from patients in average 79 years old and using 10 prescribed medications. The regression model (adjusted R 2 = 0.726, P < 0.0001) resulted in the following criteria for the algorithm: "number of medications" × 1 + "number of prescribers" × 3 + "recent fall incident" × 7 + "does not collect own medication" × 4. The pharmacists performed advanced medication reviews with all patients. The time needed to perform the medication review did not differ significantly according to case complexity (76.9 min for high complexity; 66.1 min for low complexity). Agreement between the algorithm scores and the pharmacists' ratings on complexity degree was slight to moderate (Kappa 0.16-0.42). The pharmacists had mixed opinions about the feasibility of applying the algorithm, particularly regarding the criterion "fall incidents." Conclusion: We developed an algorithm with four criteria that distinguished between high and low complexity patients as rated by experts. Additional validation steps are needed before implementation.

Shared decision making can guide patients facing difficult treatment decisions, with a trade-off between risks and benefits, taking patient goals and preferences into account. The Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) was developed to facilitate the discussion of goals and preferences with older patients in an encompassing, non-disease-specific way. The OPT is used in both primary and secondary healthcare for several treatment decisions, but data regarding the tool are limited. A concise review yielded two developmental articles, four articles describing three studies using the OPT, and one study protocol. All studies were performed among older patients. In those studies, the majority of patients ranked maintaining independence as most important. The tool has been shown to be feasible for both patients and healthcare providers.

Introduction To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. Methods In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. Results The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. Discussion This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care.

Cancer care is complex and involves many different healthcare providers, especially during diagnosis and initial treatment, and it has been reported that both general practitioners and oncology specialists experience difficulties with interdisciplinary communication. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore information sharing between primary and secondary care for patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. A qualitative content analysis of 50 medical files (419 documents) was performed, which identified 70 correspondence-related items. Six main topics were identified in most referral letters from primary to secondary care, but it was particularly notable that highly relevant information regarding the past medical history was often mixed with less relevant information. To lesser extents, the same held true for the medication list and presenting history. In the letters from specialists, nine topics were identified in most letters. Although information about actual treatment was always present, only limited detail, if any, was given about the intent of the treatment (curative or palliative) or the treatment alternatives. Interviews with nine healthcare providers confirmed these issues. These findings indicate that neither the initial referral nor the specialist correspondence is tailored to the needs of the recipient.

BackgroundDecision aids can be used to support shared decision making (SDM). A patient-oriented treatment decision aid (DA) was developed for type 2 diabetes but its use by general practice staff appeared to be limited. ObjectivesTo explore views of practice staff towards SDM and the DA. DesignA mixed-methods study within the Dutch PORTDA-diab trial. Setting and participantsIncluded were 17 practices with staff members who were responsible for routine diabetes care and had worked with the DA, and 209 of their patients. MethodsInterviews were conducted focusing on applicability, usefulness and feasibility of the DA. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis for identifying and classifying views. Patient-reported data about the use of the DA were collected. Associations between specific views and use of the DA were tested using Pearson point-biserial correlation. ResultsThe majority of practice staff expressed positive views towards SDM, which was associated with making more use of the DA. Most of the staff expressed that the DA stimulated a two-way conversation. By using the DA, several became aware of their paternalistic approach. Some staff experienced a conflict with the content of the DA, which was associated with making less use of the DA. ConclusionsThe DA was considered useful by practice staff to support SDM. A positive view towards SDM was a facilitator, whereas experiencing a conflict with the content of the DA was a barrier for making use of the DA.

BACKGROUND:Several methods have been developed to conduct and support medication reviews in older persons with multimorbidity. Assessing the patient's priorities for achieving specific health outcomes can guide the medication review process. Little is known about the impact of conducting such assessments.AIM:This pilot study aimed to determine proposed and observed medication changes when using an outcome prioritisation tool (OPT) during a medication review in general practice.DESIGN AND SETTING:Participants were older patients with multimorbidity (aged ≥69 years) with polypharmacy (five or more chronic medications) from the practices of 14 GPs.METHOD:Patients were asked to prioritise four universal health outcomes - remaining alive, maintaining independence, reducing pain, and reducing other symptoms - using an OPT. GPs used this prioritisation to review the medication and to propose and discuss medication changes with the patient. The outcomes included the proposed medication change as documented by the GP, and the observed medication change in the electronic health record at follow-up. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine medication changes according to the prioritised health outcomes.RESULTS:A total of 59 patients using 486 medications prioritised the four health outcomes. GPs proposed 34 changes of medication, mainly stopping, for 20 patients. At follow-up, 14 medication changes were observed for 10 patients. The stopping of medication (mostly preventive) was particularly observed in patients who prioritised 'reducing other symptoms' as most important.CONCLUSION:Using an OPT leads mainly to the stopping of medication. Medication changes appeared to be easiest for patients who prioritised 'reducing other symptoms' as most important.

PURPOSE:The STOPP/START criteria are increasingly used to assess prescribing quality in elderly patients at practice level. Our aim was to test computerized algorithms for applying these criteria to a medical record database. METHODS:STOPP/START criteria-based computerized algorithms were defined using Anatomical-Therapeutic-Chemical (ATC) codes for medication and International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes for diagnoses. The algorithms were applied to a Dutch primary care database, including patients aged ≥65 years using ≥5 chronic drugs. We tested for associations with patient characteristics that have previously shown a relationship with the original STOPP/START criteria, using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS:Included were 1187 patients with a median age of 75 years. In total, 39 of the 62 STOPP and 18 of the 26 START criteria could be converted to a computerized algorithm. The main reasons for inapplicability were lack of information on the severity of a condition and insufficient covering of ICPC-codes. We confirmed a positive association between the occurrence of both the STOPP and the START criteria and the number of chronic drugs (adjusted OR ranging from 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.82 to 3.19, 95% CI 2.33-4.36) as well as the patient's age (adjusted OR for STOPP 1.30, 95% CI 1.01-1.67; for START 1.73, 95% CI 1.35-2.21), and also between female gender and the occurrence of STOPP criteria (adjusted OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82). CONCLUSION:Sixty-five percent of the STOPP/START criteria could be applied with computerized algorithms to a medical record database with ATC-coded medication and ICPC-coded diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES:To explore an outcome prioritization tool (OPT) in eliciting individuals' preferred health outcomes (remaining alive, maintaining independence, reducing pain, reducing other symptoms) in the context of medication review in family practice. DESIGN:Cross-sectional pilot study with mixed-methods design. SETTING:Family practice. PARTICIPANTS:Multimorbid individuals (N = 60; aged ≥69) with polypharmacy (≥5 chronic medications) derived from the practice lists of a purposive sample of 13 family physicians (FPs). MEASUREMENTS:Participants were asked to prioritize each health outcome according the trade-off principle, and FPs used this prioritization for medication review. The acceptability and practicality were measured using a questionnaire for FPs and participants and semistructured interviews with FPs. RESULTS:Ninety-two percent of participants found the OPT understandable, and 55% could easily prioritize between health outcomes. Working with the OPT (mean duration 31 minutes) was a new approach for FPs, but they became more adept at using it. For FPs, the OPT provides better understanding of their patients. Participants and FPs thought that there should be a specific reason to discuss preferences, such as (expected) decline in health status. CONCLUSION:The OPT appears to be promising in eliciting patient preferences but is not suitable for routine medication review at present. Further optimization before actual use is needed (e.g., knowledge in which clinical situations the OPT is useful). More information is needed on how individuals and their families perceive the tool.

Purpose Traditionally, general practitioners (GPs) are not involved in cancer-related treatment decisions, despite their often long relationship with patients, and their unique position to explore patients' values, especially with older patients. Therefore, we designed a randomised controlled trial to study the effect, on self-efficacy related to treatment decisions, of a conversation about treatment goals between GPs and patients with cancer in a palliative setting. Methods We aim to include 168 patients aged ≥70 years with a diagnosis of non-curable cancer, due to consult their oncologist about treatment options. In the intervention group, patients will consult their GP using an Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT). The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome will be the score on a decision self-efficacy scale after the consultation with the oncologist. Secondary outcomes will be symptoms of depression, anxiety, or fatigue. In an embedded observational study of the intervention group, we aim to assess the prioritisation of treatment goals (i.e., OPT scores), and their determinants, over a six-month period. Conclusions The OPTion study should provide relevant information about the effect on self-efficacy of a consultation between GPs and older patients with cancer, concerning preferred treatment goals in a palliative setting. Dutch Trial Register NTR5419

Meneer Pieters is een 79-jarige boer die zijn land heeft verkocht maar in de boerderij is blijven wonen. Hij is gesteld op zijn zelfstandigheid en is het liefst de hele dag buiten. Hij belandt via zijn huisarts in het ziekenhuis met een longontsteking en op de röntgenfoto worden afwijkingen gezien die mogelijk maligne zijn. Nadere diagnostiek bevestigt de diagnose stadium-IV longkanker. Er wordt chemotherapie gestart en hoewel de patiënt hier aanvankelijk baat bij lijkt te hebben, krijgt hij na de tweede kuur koorts. Hij neemt direct contact op met het ziekenhuis, wordt opgenomen en overlijdt binnen enkele dagen. Alles is gegaan volgens de richtlijnen en de familie is niet ontevreden. Toch knaagt er iets bij de huisarts: wilde de patiënt deze chemotherapie wel echt?

To assess the effects of a patient oriented decision aid for prioritising treatment goals in diabetes compared with usual care on patient empowerment and treatment decisions.Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Netherlands trial register NTR1942. <AbstractText Label="SETTING" NlmCategory="METHODS">18 general practices in the north of the Netherlands.344 patients with type 2 diabetes aged (currency) 65 years at the time of diagnosis and managed in primary care between April 2011 and August 2012: 225 were allocated to the intervention group and 119 to the usual care group. The intervention comprised a decision aid for people with diabetes, with individually tailored risk information and treatment options for multiple risk factors. The aid was intended to empower patients to prioritise between clinical domains and to support treatment decisions. It was offered to participants before a regular diabetes check-up and to their healthcare provider during the consultation. Four different formats of the decision aid were included for additional explorative analyses. The primary outcome was the effects on patient empowerment for setting and achieving goals. The secondary outcomes were changes in the prescribing of drugs to regulate glucose, blood pressure, lipids, and albuminuria. Data were collected through structured questionnaires and automated data extraction from electronic health records during six months before and after the intervention.Of all intervention participants, 103 (46%) reported to have received the basic elements of the intervention. For the primary outcome analysis, 199 intervention and 107 control patients with sufficient baseline and follow-up data could be included. The mean empowerment score increased 0.1 on a 5 point scale in the overall intervention group, which was not significantly different from that of the control group (mean difference after adjusting for baseline 0.039, 95% confidence interval -0.056 to 0.134). Lipid regulating drug treatment was intensified in 25% of intervention and 12% of control participants with increased cholesterol levels, which did not reach significance when the intervention was compared with the usual care group (odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 7.23). Prespecified explorative analyses showed that this effect was significant for the printed version of the decision aid in comparison to usual care (3.90, 1.29 to 11.80). No relevant or significant changes were seen for other treatments.We found no evidence that the patient oriented treatment decision aid improves patient empowerment by an important amount. The aid was not used to its full extent in a substantial number of participants.

Er schort nog weleens wat aan de communicatie tussen huisarts en specialist, vooral bij telefonisch overleg. Een voorbeeld: een huisarts bezoekt tijdens de avonddienst een onbekende patiënt in een achterstandswijk.

Objective To assess the effects of a patient oriented decision aid for prioritising treatment goals in diabetes compared with usual care on patient empowerment and treatment decisions. Design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting 18 general practices in the north of the Netherlands. Participants 344 patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≤65 years at the time of diagnosis and managed in primary care between April 2011 and August 2012: 225 were allocated to the intervention group and 119 to the usual care group. Intervention The intervention comprised a decision aid for people with diabetes, with individually tailored risk information and treatment options for multiple risk factors. The aid was intended to empower patients to prioritise between clinical domains and to support treatment decisions. It was offered to participants before a regular diabetes check-up and to their healthcare provider during the consultation. Four different formats of the decision aid were included for additional explorative analyses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the effects on patient empowerment for setting and achieving goals. The secondary outcomes were changes in the prescribing of drugs to regulate glucose, blood pressure, lipids, and albuminuria. Data were collected through structured questionnaires and automated data extraction from electronic health records during six months before and after the intervention. Results Of all intervention participants, 103 (46%) reported to have received the basic elements of the intervention. For the primary outcome analysis, 199 intervention and 107 control patients with sufficient baseline and follow-up data could be included. The mean empowerment score increased 0.1 on a 5 point scale in the overall intervention group, which was not significantly different from that of the control group (mean difference after adjusting for baseline 0.039, 95% confidence interval −0.056 to 0.134). Lipid regulating drug treatment was intensified in 25% of intervention and 12% of control participants with increased cholesterol levels, which did not reach significance when the intervention was compared with the usual care group (odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 7.23). Prespecified explorative analyses showed that this effect was significant for the printed version of the decision aid in comparison to usual care (3.90, 1.29 to 11.80). No relevant or significant changes were seen for other treatments. Conclusion We found no evidence that the patient oriented treatment decision aid improves patient empowerment by an important amount. The aid was not used to its full extent in a substantial number of participants. Trial registration Dutch trial register NTR1942.

Elderly patients with multimorbidity treated in accordance with disease-specific guidelines use a large number of drugs. As this approach may harm the patient's wellbeing, our care should evolve from disease-oriented to patient-oriented. A simple tool has been introduced to facilitate this type of consultation. On a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-100) four generic treatment goals are presented to the patient: extending life, maintaining independence, pain relief and relief of other symptoms. The patient is invited to weigh the importance of these outcomes using the 'trade-off' principle, and asked to rank these goals in such a way that the score reflects the patient's preference profile. With the help of this decision aid, the medication of two female patients aged 85 and 94 was reviewed. Embedding this tool in the first step of the medication review process may help to shift the focus from the disease to the patient.

Bij het maken van behandelkeuzen voor oudere patienten met multimorbiditeit zouden hun voorkeuren centraal moeten staan. Die mening zijn veel huisartsen toegedaan en ook de multidisciplinaire richtlijn ‘Polyfarmacie bij ouderen’ benadrukt het belang van het verhelderen van de verwachtingen van de patient. In de praktijk blijken artsen echter om uiteenlopende redenen nauwelijks naar deze voorkeuren te vragen. Een visueel hulpmiddel, de voorkeurenschuif, kan een gesprek vergemakkelijken. Oudere patienten met multimorbiditeit die volgens de geldende richtlijnen behandeld worden, gebruiken dagelijks gemiddeld 10 verschillende geneesmiddelen.1 Daarmee lopen zij een verhoogd risico op ongewenste effecten. Ook kan de kwaliteit van leven nadelig worden beinvloed door de ‘gestapelde’ behandeling.2 Klachten over of onvrede met de behandeling, van de patient of de arts, kunnen aanleiding zijn om het beleid te herzien. Bij een dergelijke bezinning moet worden bepaald welke behandeldoelen de patient belangrijk vindt.

BACKGROUND:Elderly patients with multimorbidity who are treated according to guidelines use a large number of drugs. This number of drugs increases the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). Stopping medication may relieve these effects, and thereby improve the patient's wellbeing. To facilitate management of polypharmacy expert-driven instruments have been developed, sofar with little effect on the patient's quality of life. Recently, much attention has been paid to shared decision-making in general practice, mainly focusing on patient preferences. This study explores how experienced GPs feel about deprescribing medication in older patients with multimorbidity and to what extent they involve patients in these decisions.METHODS:Focusgroups of GPs were used to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and categorizing the GP's view on the subject. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and studied by the first and second author. They selected independently relevant textfragments. In a next step they labeled these fragments and sorted them. From these labelled and sorted fragments central themes were extracted.RESULTS:GPs discern symptomatic medication and preventive medication; deprescribing the latter category is seen as more difficult by the GPs due to lack of benefit/risk information for these patients.Factors influencing GPs'deprescribing were beliefs concerning patients (patients have no problem with polypharmacy; patients may interpret a proposal to stop preventive medication as a sign of having been given up on; and confronting the patient with a discussion of life expectancy vs quality of life is 'not done'), guidelines for treatment (GPs feel compelled to prescribe by the present guidelines) and organization of healthcare (collaboration with prescribing medical specialists and dispensing pharmacists.CONCLUSIONS:The GPs' beliefs concerning elderly patients are a barrier to explore patient preferences when reviewing preventive medication. GPs would welcome decision support when dealing with several guidelines for one patient. Explicit rules for collaborating with medical specialists in this field are required. Training in shared decision making could help GPs to elicit patient preferences.

BACKGROUND:To improve risk factor management in diabetes, we need to support effective interactions between patients and healthcare providers. Our aim is to develop and evaluate a treatment decision aid that offers personalised information on treatment options and outcomes, and is intended to empower patients in taking a proactive role in their disease management. Important features are: (1) involving patients in setting goals together with their provider; (2) encourage them to prioritise on treatments that maximise relevant outcomes; and (3) integration of the decision aid in the practice setting and workflow. As secondary aim, we want to evaluate the impact of different presentation formats, and learn more from the experiences of the healthcare providers and patients with the decision aid.METHODS AND DESIGN:We will conduct a randomised trial comparing four formats of the decision aid in a 2 × 2 factorial design with a control group. Patients with type 2 diabetes managed in 18 to 20 primary care practices in The Netherlands will be recruited. Excluded are patients with a recent myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, angina pectoris, terminal illness, cognitive deficits, > 65 years at diagnosis, or not able to read Dutch. The decision aid is offered to the patients immediately before their quarterly practice consultation. The same decision information will be available to the healthcare provider for use during consultation. In addition, the providers receive a set of treatment cards, which they can use to discuss the benefits and risks of different options. Patients in the control group will receive care as usual. We will measure the effect of the intervention on patient empowerment, satisfaction with care, beliefs about medication, negative emotions, health status, prescribed medication, and predicted cardiovascular risk. Data will be collected with questionnaires and automated extraction from medical records in 6 months before and after the intervention.DISCUSSION:This decision aid is innovative in supporting patients and their healthcare providers to make shared decisions about multiple treatments, using the patient's data from electronic medical records. The results can contribute to the further development and implementation of electronic decision support tools for the management of chronic diseases.TRIAL REGISTRATION:Dutch Trial register NTR1942.