Background: Clinical medication reviews are a recognised strategy to address polypharmacy, a key part of general practice and positively associated with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. To date there has been little investigation of the patient perspective of medication reviews. Objective: To explore patient experiences of medication review including the processes and activities that led up to and shaped the review. Methods: Qualitative interview study within 10 general practices in Bristol. Participants were adults with polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) and ≥ 2 long-term conditions who had a record of medication review with either a GP or pharmacist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a data driven approach. Co-design work was undertaken with four patient and public involvement advisers to design and develop resources to support patient preparation for medication review. Results: Twenty-one patients were interviewed (10 female, mean age 73 years, range 59–88 years). Medication review was viewed as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness and need for medications. Participants expected the review to focus upon medication related concerns, side-effects and symptoms. Those who were newer to review, were uncertain of the intended purpose, and described their review as a box-ticking exercise. Some participants were unfamiliar with the role of the pharmacist and expressed a lack of confidence in their clinical skills and knowledge. Face-to-face consultation and relationship continuity were considered important for efficient and effective medication review. Results informed co-production of a patient information leaflet to facilitate greater patient engagement and involvement in medication review. Conclusions: A lack of understanding of the rationale for medication review can limit the value patients attach to these healthcare encounters. Improved prior communication and information around the intended purpose and potential benefits of medication review may enhance patient engagement and improve patient experience and outcomes.

Background: Medication review is a core aspect of medicine optimisation, yet existing models of review vary substantially in structure and content and are not necessarily easy to implement in clinical practice. This study aimed to use evidence from the existing literature to identify key medication review components and use this to inform the design of an improved review model. Methods: A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42018109788) to identify randomised control trials of stand-alone medication review in adults (18+ years). The review updated that by Huiskes et al. (BMC Fam Pract. 18:5, 2017), using the same search strategy implemented in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Key review components were identified, alongside relevant clinical and health service outcomes. A working group (patients, doctors and pharmacists) developed the model through an iterative consensus process (appraisal of documents plus group discussions), working from the systematic review findings, brief evidence summaries for core review components and examples of previous models, to agree on the main purpose of the review model, overarching model structure, review components and supporting material. Results: We identified 28 unique studies, with moderate bias overall. Consistent medication review components included reconciliation (26 studies), safety assessment (22), suboptimal treatment (19), patient knowledge/preferences (18), adherence (14), over-the-counter therapy (13) and drug monitoring (10). There was limited evidence from studies for improvement in key clinical outcomes. The review structure was underpinned by patient values and preferences, with parallel information gathering and evaluation stages, feeding into the final decision-making and implementation. Most key components identified in the literature were included. The final model was considered to benefit from a patient-centred, holistic approach, which captured both patient-orientated and medication-focused problems, and aligned with traditional consultation methods thus facilitating implementation in practice. Conclusions: The Bristol Medication Review Model provides a framework for standardised delivery of structured reviews. The model has the potential for use by all healthcare professionals with relevant clinical experience and is designed to offer flexibility of implementation not limited to a particular healthcare setting.

Introduction: Polypharmacy is increasingly common, and associated with undesirable consequences. Polypharmacy management necessitates balancing therapeutic benefits and risks, and varying clinical and patient priorities. Current guidance for managing polypharmacy is not supported by high quality evidence. The aim of the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in a general practice setting. Methods: This trial will use a multicentre, open-label, cluster-randomised controlled approach, with two parallel groups. Practices will be randomised to a complex intervention comprising structured medication review (including interprofessional GP/pharmacist treatment planning and patient-facing review) supported by performance feedback, financial incentivisation, clinician training and clinical informatics (intervention), or usual care (control). Patients with polypharmacy and triggering potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) indicators will be recruited in each practice using a computerised search of health records. 37 practices will recruit 50 patients, and review them over a 26-week intervention delivery period. The primary outcome is the mean number of PIP indicators triggered per patient at 26 weeks follow-up, determined objectively from coded GP electronic health records. Secondary outcomes will include patient reported outcome measures, and health and care service use. The main intention-to-treat analysis will use linear mixed effects regression to compare number of PIP indicators triggered at 26 weeks post-review between groups, adjusted for baseline (pre-randomisation) values. A nested process evaluation will explore implementation of the intervention in primary care. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol and associated study materials have been approved by the Wales REC 6, NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/WA/0090), host institution and Health Research Authority. Research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences, and additionally disseminated to patients and the public, clinicians, commissioners and policy makers. ISRCTN Registration: 90146150 (28/03/2019)

Background: There has been significant investment in pharmacists working in UK general practice to improve the effective and safe use of medicines. However, evidence of how to optimise collaboration between GPs and pharmacists in the context of polypharmacy (multiple medication) is lacking. Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist views and experiences of in-person, interprofessional collaborative discussions (IPCDs) as part of a complex intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in general practice. Design and setting: A mixed-method process evaluation embedded within the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial conducted in Bristol and the West Midlands, between February 2021 and September 2023. Method: Audio-recordings of IPCDs between GPs and pharmacists, along with individual semi-structured interviews to explore their reflections on these discussions, were used. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: A total of 14 practices took part in the process evaluation from February 2022 to September 2023; 17 IPCD meetings were audio-recorded, discussing 30 patients (range 1–6 patients per meeting). In all, six GPs and 13 pharmacists were interviewed. The IPCD was highly valued by GPs and pharmacists who described benefits, including: strengthening their working relationship; gaining in confidence to manage more complex patients; and learning from each other. It was often challenging, however, to find time for the IPCDs. Conclusion: The model of IPCD used in this study provided protected time for GPs and pharmacists to work together to deliver whole-patient care, with both professions finding this beneficial. Protected time for interprofessional liaison and collaboration, and structured interventions may facilitate improved patient care.

Background: Subclinical thyroid dysfunction — abnormal serum thyrotrophin (thyroid-stimulating hormone; TSH) concentrations with normal free thyroxine (FT4) is common in older people. It remains unclear whether individuals with subclinical serum status experience an increased symptom profile.Aim: To compare the prevalence of those symptoms typically associated with overt thyroid dysfunction in older individuals with a subclinical and euthyroid serum profile.Design and setting: Cross-sectional study, nested within the Birmingham Elderly Thyroid Study (BETS); from 19 UK general practices.Method: Adults living in a community setting (aged ≥65 years), without overt thyroid dysfunction or associated treatment, self-reported the presence or absence of 18 symptoms (while serum result naïve). Serum concentrations of TSH and FT4 were measured to establish thyroid status.Results: A total of 2870 individuals were screened: 2703 (94%) were categorised as euthyroid (normal), 29 (1%) subclinically hyperthyroid, and 138 (5%) subclinically hypothyroid. Symptoms were common in all groups. No significant differences in the prevalence of individual symptoms were observed between the euthyroid and subclinically hypothyroid groups nor in comparison with the subclinically hyperthyroid group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis failed to reveal an association between individual or multiple symptoms and subclinical status.Conclusion: Findings suggest that subclinical thyroid dysfunction does not confer a symptom burden in older individuals and support adherence to guidelines in the non-treatment of subclinical thyroid dysfunction. GPs may use the findings to reassure older people presenting with symptoms that subclinical thyroid dysfunction is an unlikely explanation. The presence of persistently abnormal TSH concentrations may be linked to long-term risks of cardiovascular disease, especially atrial fibrillation, but whether this should prompt treatment and whether such treatment alters vascular outcomes is unknown.

Background: Prescription medication sharing refers to the lending or borrowing of prescription medications where the recipient is someone other than the person for whom the prescription is intended. Sharing prescription medication can cause significant harm. Adverse consequences include an increased risk of side effects, delayed health seeking, and severity of disease. Prevalence estimates vary across different populations and people’s reasons for, and perceptions of risks from, sharing are poorly understood.Aim: To better understand prescription medication-sharing behaviours and practices – specifically, the prevalence, types of medications, reasons, perceived benefits and risks, and factors associated with medication sharing.Design and setting: This systematic review included primary studies in any setting, focusing on people who engage in medication sharing.Method: Electronic databases were searched from inception of databases to February 2023.Results: In total, 19 studies were included. Prevalence of lifetime sharing ranged from 13% to 78%. All 19 studies reported that analgesics were the most shared, followed by antibiotics (n= 12) and allergy medication (n= 9). Common reasons for sharing were running out of medication (n= 7), cost (n= 7), and emergency (n= 6). Perceived benefits included resolution of the problem and convenience. Perceived risks included adverse drug reactions and misdiagnosis. Characteristics associated with sharing included age, female sex, having asthma, and unused medicines stored at home.Conclusion: Findings suggest that medication-sharing behaviour is common and involves a range of medicines for a variety of reasons. Data on the prevalence and predictors of prescription medication sharing are inconsistent. A better understanding of non-modifiable and potentially modifiable behavioural factors that contribute to sharing is needed to support development of effective interventions aimed at mitigating unsafe sharing practices.