Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial

S. Thevelin, Catherine Pétein, Beatrice Metry, L. Adam, Anniek van Herksen, K. Murphy, W. Knol, D. O’Mahony, N. Rodondi, A. Spinewine, O. Dalleur
{"title":"Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial","authors":"S. Thevelin, Catherine Pétein, Beatrice Metry, L. Adam, Anniek van Herksen, K. Murphy, W. Knol, D. O’Mahony, N. Rodondi, A. Spinewine, O. Dalleur","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness. Objective To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity. Methods We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70–94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians. Results Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients’ beliefs that ‘doctors know best’, ‘blind trust’, having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, ‘feeling too ill’, dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients’ experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes. Conclusion To meet patients’ needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"31 1","pages":"888 - 898"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness. Objective To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity. Methods We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70–94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians. Results Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients’ beliefs that ‘doctors know best’, ‘blind trust’, having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, ‘feeling too ill’, dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients’ experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes. Conclusion To meet patients’ needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多病老年人医院启动药物改变的经验:一项多中心混合方法研究嵌入了优化治疗以防止多病老年人可避免的住院(OPERAM)试验
以患者为中心的药物优化方法被认为是必不可少的。优化治疗预防多病老年人可避免住院(OPERAM)试验评估了共同决策的药物审查(SDM)在多病老年人中的有效性。除了评估临床效果,探索患者体验有助于更好地理解影响药物审查效果的背景因素和机制。目的探讨老年多病患者院源性用药改变的经验。方法:我们进行了一项多中心混合方法研究,嵌入在OPERAM试验中,结合半结构化访谈和药物信念问卷(BMQ),目的样本为来自四个欧洲国家的48例患者(70-94岁)。访谈采用框架方法进行分析。收集SDM的试验实施数据,对17名临床医生进行9项SDM问卷调查。结果患者普遍对药物审查持积极态度,但强调长期信任关系的重要性,如与全科医生进行药物审查。许多患者报告缺乏关于药物变化的信息和沟通,主要经历家长式决策。患者认为“医生最懂”、“盲目信任”、提问机会有限、临床医生使用术语、“感觉病得太重”、临床医生不屑一顾等等,这些都凸显了一些患者在住院期间感到的无力感,这些都是SDM的障碍。相反,同伴的参与、健康知识、同理心和信任的医患关系促进了可持续发展。与患者的经验描述相矛盾的是,临床医生报告了高水平的SDM。BMQ结果显示,大多数患者对药物的需求程度高,关注程度低。对药物的信念、药物变化带来的益处或危害、对疾病的感知、不同医疗保健专业人员之间的信任和平衡建议都会影响对药物变化的接受程度。结论为了满足患者的需求,未来的药物优化干预措施应加强信息交流,使患者和临床医生更好地为护理伙伴关系做好准备,并促进跨护理机构的协作性药物审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1