1) To evaluate the participation rate and identify the practical barriers to implementing a community pharmacist-led medication review service in francophone Switzerland and, 2) To assess the effectiveness of external support. A qualitative survey was undertaken to identify barriers to patient inclusion and medication review delivery in daily practice among all contactable independent pharmacists working in francophone Switzerland (n=78) who were members of a virtual chain (pharmacieplus), regardless of their participation in a simultaneous cross-sectional study. This study analyzed the dissemination of a medication review service including a prescription and drug utilization review with access to clinical data, a patient interview and a pharmaceutical report to the physicians. In addition, we observed an exploratory and external coaching for pharmacists that we launched seven months after the beginning of the cross-sectional study. Poor motivation on the part of pharmacists and difficulties communicating with physicians and patients were the primary obstacles identified. Lack of time and lack of self-confidence in administering the medication review process were the most commonly perceived practical barriers to the implementation of the new service. The main facilitators to overcome these issues may be well-planned workflow organization techniques, strengthened by an adequate remuneration scheme and a comprehensive and practice-based training course that includes skill-building in pharmacotherapy and communication. External support may partially compensate for a weak organizational framework. To facilitate the implementation of a medication review service, a strong local networking with physicians, an effective workflow management and a practice- and communications-focused training for pharmacists and their teams seem key elements required. External support can be useful to help some pharmacists improve their service management skills. Adequate remuneration seems necessary to encourage initial investments to provide such a service. Future research in this area may help improve the process and design of training programs, as well as the monitoring of implementation for each new pharmaceutical service.

Background: Six pioneer physicians-pharmacists quality circles (PPQCs) located in the Swiss canton of Fribourg (administratively corresponding to a state in the US) were under the responsibility of 6 trained community pharmacists moderating the prescribing process of 24 general practitioners (GPs). PPQCs are based on a multifaceted collaborative process mediated by community pharmacists for improving compliance with clinical guidelines within GPs’ prescribing practices. Objective: To assess, over a 9-year period (1999–2007), the cost-containment impact of the PPQCs. Methods: The key elements of PPQCs are a structured continuous quality improvement and education process; local networking; feedback of comparative and detailed data regarding costs, drug choice, and frequency of prescribed drugs; and structured independent literature review for interdisciplinary continuing education. The data are issued from the community pharmacy invoices to the health insurance companies. The study analyzed the cost-containment impact of the PPQCs in comparison with GPs working in similar conditions of care without particular collaboration with pharmacists, the percentage of generic prescriptions for specific cardiovascular drug classes, and the percentage of drug costs or units prescribed for specific cardiovascular drugs. Results: For the 9-year period, there was a 42% decrease in the drug costs in the PPQC group as compared to the control group, representing a $225,000 (USD) savings per GP only in 2007. These results are explained by better compliance with clinical and pharmacovigilance guidelines, larger distribution of generic drugs, a more balanced attitude toward marketing strategies, and interdisciplinary continuing education on the rational use of drugs. Conclusions: The PPQC work process has yielded sustainable results, such as significant cost savings, higher penetration of generics and reflection on patient safety, and the place of “new” drugs in therapy. The PPQCs may also constitute a solid basis for implementing more comprehensive collaborative programs, such as medication reviews, adherence-enhancing interventions, or disease management approaches.

Background: Polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications are frequent safety issues among nursing home (NH) residents. Deprescribing can significantly reduce the number of drugs used, medication costs, and mortality. This qualitative study sought to understand and compare the perceptions and practices of nurses, pharmacists, and physicians regarding deprescribing in Swiss NHs, referring to an implementation approach on three levels of action: the individual, the institution, and the healthcare system. Methods: Two focus groups were held with 21 participants: one focus group with 11 pharmacists, another with 10 nurses and six semi-structured interviews with physicians were conducted and focused on their individual experience and practices. They were audiotaped and fully transcribed, and a content analysis was performed using to MAXQDA (Ver 12) software. Results: (1) At an individual level, physicians were concerned by consequences of deprescribing in terms of safety. Nurses were closest to residents and stressed the importance of finding the right time, creating a bond of trust before deprescribing and considering the purpose of the stay in the NH. Pharmacists relied on structured guides for deprescribing, which led their reflection and practice. All professionals saw the complexity of the clinical situations, as well as residents’ and relatives’ fears of interruption of care. (2) At an institutional level, the professionals stressed the lack of time to discuss patients’ health and treatment, while pre-existing interprofessional collaboration, specifically, quality circles, seemed useful tools to create common knowledge. In order to reduce prescriptions, better coordination between physicians, nurses, pharmacists and specialists seemed crucial. (3) At the health system level, funding still needs to be provided to consolidate the process, go beyond organisational constraints and ensure deprescribing serves the patient’s wellbeing above all. Conclusions: At the individual level of implementation, the different healthcare professionals expressed specific concerns about deprescribing, depending on their defined role in NHs. Their perspective about the different levers to promote deprescribing at institutional and healthcare system levels converge towards interprofessional collaboration supported by the healthcare system. Specific funding and incentives are therefore needed to support a sustainable interprofessional team.

Background: Deprescribing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) has been shown to be beneficial to nursing home (NH) residents' health. Medication reviews are the most widely studied deprescribing intervention; in a previous trial, we showed that another intervention, a deprescribing-focused interprofessional quality circle, can reduce the use of inappropriate medications at the NH level. However, this intervention cannot account for the variety of the residents’ clinical situations. Therefore, we trialled a subsequent intervention in NH that enacted the quality circle intervention in the previous year. Methods: In 7 NHs, the most heavily medicated residents were recruited and randomised to receive usual care or the intervention. The intervention was a pharmacist-led, deprescribing-focused medication review, followed by the creation of an individualised treatment modification plan in collaboration with nurses and physicians. Intervention’s effects were assessed after four months on the number and dose of PIMs used, quality of life, and safety outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and use of physical restraints). Data were analysed using Poisson multivariate regression models. Results: Sixty-two NH residents participated, falling short of the expected 100 participants; 4 died before initial data collection. Participants used a very high number of drugs (median 15, inter-quartile range [12-19]) and PIMs (median 5, IQR [3-7]) at baseline. The intervention did not reduce the number of PIMs prescribed to the participants; however, it significantly decreased their dose (incidence rate ratio 0.763, CI₉₅ [0.594; 0.979]), in particular for chronic drugs (IRR 0.716, CI₉₅ [0.546; 0.938]). No adverse effects were seen on mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and restraints use, but, in the intervention group, three participants experienced adverse events that required the reintroduction of withdrawn treatments, and a decrease in quality of life is possible. Conclusions: As it did not reach its recruitment target, this trial should be seen as exploratory. Results indicate that, following a NH-level deprescribing intervention, a resident-level intervention can further reduce some aspects of PIMs use. Great attention must be paid to residents’ well-being when further developing such deprescribing interventions, as a possible reduction in quality of life was found in the intervention group, and some participants suffered adverse events following deprescribing. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03688542, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03688542), registered on 31.08.2018.