Polypharmacy is common in older people and associated with potential harms. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of an older multimorbid population with polypharmacy and to identify factors contributing to excessive polypharmacy in these patients. This cross-sectional analysis is based on the PRIMA-eDS trial, a large randomised controlled multicentre study of polypharmacy in primary care. Patients’ baseline data were used for analysis. A number of socioeconomic and medical data as well as SF-12-scores were entered into a generalized linear mixed model to identify variables associated with excessive polypharmacy (taking ≥10 substances daily). Three thousand nine hundred four participants were recruited. Risk factors significantly associated with excessive polypharmacy were frailty (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.22–1.71), > 8 diagnoses (OR 2.64; 95% CI 2.24–3.11), BMI ≥30 (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02–1.38), a lower SF-12 physical health composite score (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.26–1.72), and a lower SF-12 mental health composite score (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.17–1.59) than the median of the study population (≤36.6 and ≤ 48.7, respectively). Age ≥ 85 years (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70–0.99) led to a significantly lower risk for excessive polypharmacy. No association with excessive polypharmacy could be found for female sex, low educational level, and smoking. Regarding the study centres, being recruited in the UK led to a significantly higher risk for excessive polypharmacy compared to being recruited in Germany 1/Rostock (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.27–2.30). Being recruited in Germany 2/Witten led to a slightly significant lower risk for excessive polypharmacy compared to Germany 1/Rostock (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56–0.97). Frailty, multimorbidity, obesity, and decreased physical as well as mental health status are risk factors for excessive polypharmacy. Sex, educational level, and smoking apparently do not seem to be related to excessive polypharmacy. Physicians should especially pay attention to their frail, obese patients who have multiple diagnoses and a decreased health-related quality of life, to check carefully whether all the drugs prescribed are evidence-based, safe, and do not interact in an unfavourable way. This trial has been registered with Current Controlled Trials Ltd. on 31 July 2014 (ISRCTN10137559).

Despite numerous evidences for the positive effect of community pharmacists on health care, interprofessional collaboration of pharmacists and general practitioners is very often limited. Though highly trained, pharmacists remain an underutilised resource in primary health care in most western countries. This qualitative study aims at investigating pharmacists’ and general practitioners’ views on barriers to interprofessional collaboration in the German health care system. A total of 13 narrative in-depth interviews, and two focus group discussions with 12 pharmacists and general practitioners in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a predominantly rural region of North-Eastern Germany, were conducted. The interviews aimed at exploring general practitioners’ and pharmacists’ attitudes, views and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. At a second stage, two focus group discussions were performed. Fieldwork was carried out by a multi-professional team. All interviews and focus group discussions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. The constant comparative method of analysis from grounded theory was applied to the data. There are three main findings: First, mutual trust and appreciation appear to be important factors influencing the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Second, in light of negative personal experiences, pharmacists call for a predefined, clear and straightforward way to communicate with physicians. Third, given the increasing challenge to treat a rising number of elderly patients with chronic conditions, general practitioners desire competent support of experienced pharmacists. On the ground of methodological triangulation the findings of this study go beyond previous investigations and are able to provide specific recommendations for future interprofessional collaboration. First, interventions and initiatives should focus on increasing trust, e.g. by implementing multi-professional local quality circles. Second, governments and health authorities in most countries have been and still are reluctant in advancing political initiatives that bring together physicians and pharmacists. Proactive lobbying and empowerment of pharmacists are extremely important in this context. In addition, future physician and pharmaceutical training curricula should focus on comprehensive pharmacist-physician interaction at early stages within both professional educations and careers. Developing and fostering a culture of continued professional exchange and appreciation is one major challenge of future policy and research.

Treatment of patients with multimorbidity is challenging. A rational reduction of long-term drugs can lead to decreased mortality, less acute hospital treatment, and a reduction of costs. Simplification of drug treatment schemes is also related to higher levels of patient satisfaction and adherence. The POLITE-RCT trial will test the effectiveness of an intervention aiming at reducing the number of prescribed long-term drugs among multimorbid and chronically ill patients. The intervention focuses on the interface between primary and secondary health care and includes a pharmacist-based, patient-centered medication review prior to the patient's discharge from hospital. The POLITE-RCT trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial. Two major secondary health care providers of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany, take part in the study. Clusters are wards of both medical centers. All wards where patients with chronic diseases and multimorbidity are regularly treated will be included. Patients aged 65+ years who take five or more prescribed long-term drugs and who are likely to spend at least 5 days in the participating hospitals will be recruited and included consecutively. Cluster-randomization takes place after a six-month baseline data collection period. Patients of the control group receive care as usual. The independent two main primary outcomes are (1) health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and (2) the difference in the number of prescribed long-term pharmaceutical agents between intervention and control group. The secondary outcomes are appropriateness of prescribed medication (PRISCUS list, Beers Criteria, MAI), patient satisfaction (TSQM), patient empowerment (PEF-FB-9), patient autonomy (IADL), falls, re-hospitalization, and death. The points of measurement are at admission to (T0) and discharge from hospital (T1) as well as 6 and 12 months after discharge from the hospital (T2 and T3). In 42 wards, 1,626 patients will be recruited. In case of positive evaluation, the proposed study will provide evidence for a sustainable reduction of polypharmacy by enhancing patient-centeredness and patient autonomy. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42003273

Does an intervention designed to foster patient-centered communication and shared decision making among GPs and their patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus reduce the level of HbA1c. The DEBATE trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in German primary care and including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus having an HbA1c level of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) or above at the time of recruitment. Data was measured before intervention (baseline, T0), 6–8 months (T1), 12–14 months (T2), 18–20 months (T3), and 24–26 months (T4) after baseline. Main outcome measure is the level of HbA1c. In both, the intervention and the control group the decline of the HbA1c level from T0 to T4 was statistically significant (− 0.67% (95% CI: − 0.80,-0.54%; p < 0.0001) and − 0.64% (95% CI: − 0.78, − 0.51%; p < 0.0001), respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups. Although the DEBATE trial was not able to confirm effectiveness of the intervention tested compared to care as usual, the results suggest that patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes are able to improve their blood glucose levels. This finding may encourage physicians to stay on task to regularly approach this cohort of patients. The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571 .

Since 2004, a national Disease Management Program (DMP) has been implemented in Germany, which includes educational measures aimed at patients with type-2 diabetes (T2D). However, about 15-20% of T2D patients remain in poor metabolic control. Qualitative research shows that one reason for this might be an increasing frustration of general practitioners (GPs) with the management of their poorly regulated T2D patients over time. We aim at approaching this problem by improving the GP-patient-communication and fostering shared decision-making.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in the western world. Despite a widespread implementation of integrated care programs there are still patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Shared goal setting within the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) may increase patient’s compliance and adherence to treatment regimen. In our secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial, we investigated if patients with shared vs. non-shared HbA1c treatment goal, achieve their glycemic goals. Methods: In a German primary care setting, we collected data before intervention at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients with T2DM with an HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment and complete data at baseline and after 24 months were eligible for the presented analyses. Using a generalized estimating equation analysis, we analysed the association between the achievement of HbA1c goals at 24 months based on their shared vs. non-shared status, age, sex, education, partner status, controlled for baseline HbA1c and insulin therapy. Results: From N = 833 recruited patients at baseline, n = 547 (65.7%) from 105 General Practitioners (GPs) were analysed. 53.4% patients were male, 33.1% without a partner, 64.4% had a low educational level, mean age was 64.6 (SD 10.6), 60.7% took insulin at baseline, mean baseline HbA1c was 9.1 (SD 1.0). For 287 patients (52.5%), the GPs reported to use HbA1c as a shared goal, for 260 patients (47.5%) as a non-shared goal. 235 patients (43.0%) reached the HbA1c goal after two years, 312 patients (57.0%) missed it. Multivariable analysis shows that shared vs. non-shared HbA1c goal setting, age, sex, and education are not associated with the achievement of the HbA1c goal. However, patients living without a partner show a higher risk of missing the goal (p = .003; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.25–2.86). Conclusions: Shared goal setting with T2DM patients targeting on HbA1c-levels had no significant impact on goal achievement. It may be assumed, that shared goal setting on patient-related clinical outcomes within the process of SDM has not been fully captured yet. Trial registration: The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.