Exploring elderly patients’ perspectives on deprescribing: a qualitative study interim analysis
Authors: Channa K K , Venables R H , White S J 
Published: April 2022

Abstract

Introduction
The ageing population has caused an increase in polypharmacy, multimorbidities and complexity of patients (1). Polypharmacy increases the likelihood of Adverse Drug Reactions, particularly in elderly patients due to functional/cognitive changes (1). Current research investigating views on deprescribing has shown that patients are often willing to undertake deprescribing, however qualitative research in elderly populations is sparse (1).

Aim
This study aimed to explore elderly patients’ perspectives on deprescribing and pharmaceutical input into their care.

Methods
Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of elderly (&gt;65 years) inpatients with multiple morbidities and/or frailty and were taking at least one regular medicine, at two English NHS hospital Trusts. The interview guide was developed with public contributions, aligned with the study aim and informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA)(2). The TFA was used because it was developed for assessing the acceptability of healthcare interventions (2). The interview guide included a distress protocol because the patient cohort was vulnerable. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Analysis approach, with a priori categories informed by the TFA.

Results
Interviews were conducted with 8 participants (2 male,6 female), aged 67-89 and taking 3-9 pre-admission medicines. Most participants seemed to understand that deprescribing may become appropriate and trusted their doctor to initiate discussion when deprescribing is appropriate. However, participants reported wanting to know the rationale for deprescribing (TFA domain: affective attitude): “…why was I taking it in the first place if I don’t need it now?”. Most participants wanted deprescribing discussions to start with the rationale and some said medicines should be stopped gradually with regular reviews (TFA domain: affective attitude, ethicality). Most participants referred to pharmacists having a small role in their healthcare and none mentioned pharmacists stopping medicines (TFA domain: affective attitude): “… they sort all the drugs out don’t they, that they’re ordered…”. Access to GPs was commonly reported as a burden (TFA domain: burden). Some participants reported not feeling confident to ask their GP questions and some said they had not established trust due to not seeing a regular doctor (TFA domain: burden and opportunity costs): “I’ve gotta get my confidence in them…”. Several participants reported having taken medicines for years and said that they thought the medicines were beneficial, whilst other participants said that if they could take fewer medicines they would (TFA domain: ethicality and perceived effectiveness). Some participants understood that deprescribing required weighing up risks and benefits (TFA domain: intervention coherence): “…consider the benefits and the possibility of side effects”.

Conclusion
This study adds insights from qualitative research, but these may not be widely transferrable. Whilst these are interim analysis findings that may be further refined, they suggest that deprescribing is likely to be acceptable to patients when conducted by healthcare professionals they trust and who provides the rationale for deprescribing. Patients’ awareness of who can deprescribe would benefit from being increased, since participants did not cite pharmacists as experts who can deprescribe. Future research could explore how to do so.

References
(1) Reeve E, Shakib S, Hendrix I, Roberts MS, Wiese MD. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence-based, patient-centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47.
(2) Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis J. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017; 17: 88.