METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 859 community-dwelling patients aged ≥70 years treated at 15 primary care practices. Patients were asked if they had experienced any of a list of 74 symptoms classified by physiologic system in the previous 6 months and if (1) they believed the symptom to be related to their medication, (2) the symptom had bothered them, (3) they had discussed it with their family physician, and (4) they required hospital care due to the symptom. Self-reported symptoms were independently reviewed by 2 clinicians who determined the likelihood that the symptom was an ADE. Family physician medical records were also reviewed for any report of an ADE.
RESULTS: The ADE instrument had an accuracy of 75% (95% CI, 77%-79%), a sensitivity of 29% (95% CI, 27%-31%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 92%-94%). Older people who reported a symptom had an increased likelihood of an ADE (positive likelihood ratio [LR+]: 4.22; 95% CI, 3.78-4.72). Antithrombotic agents were the drugs most commonly associated with ADEs. Patients were most bothered by muscle pain or weakness (75%), dizziness or lightheadedness (61%), cough (53%), and unsteadiness while standing (52%). On average, patients reported 39% of ADEs to their physician. Twenty-six (3%) patients attended a hospital outpatient clinic, and 32 (4%) attended an emergency department due to ADEs.
CONCLUSION: Older community-dwelling patients were often not correct in recognizing ADEs. The ADE instrument demonstrated good predictive value and could be used to differentiate between symptoms of ADEs and chronic disease in the community setting.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.
RESULTS: Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.
CONCLUSION: Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.