A qualitative exploration of barriers to efficient and effective Structured Medication Reviews in Primary Care: Findings from the DynAIRx study

a. Limited availability of digital tools to assist in identifying and prioritising patients for a SMR

PCN pharmacists reported proactively identifying and prioritising patients to conduct SMRs. Patient identification was based on the criteria outlined by the DES GP contract, which includes patients in care homes (both nursing and residential facilities), individuals with complex multimorbidity and polypharmacy, urgently referred patients, older individuals encountering medication-related harms, and patients recently discharged from hospital. HCPs also referenced using available healthcare management automated search tools within the EHR, including ‘Ardens search’ (11) and ‘ProActive Register Management (PARM) diabetes’ (12), to identify pre-determined conditions, prescribing alerts and other variables that form part of the practice workload. They also used targets from the Investment and Impact Fund (IIF) for patient identification (IIF is an incentive scheme where PCNs can improve health and the quality of care for patients with multimorbidity), which participants described as beneficial but a waste of resources in the context of SMRs which should focus on patients with complex multimorbidity and polypharmacy.(13)

Since the introduction of EHRs in the NHS, HCPs are expected to assign ‘SNOMED codes’ to document patients with specific diagnostic, symptom or treatment codes in a logical hierarchical manner to specify clinical information.(14) These codes facilitate searches for specific medical conditions, symptoms and treatments within the GP EHR, facilitating the identification of individuals requiring an SMR. Pharmacists noted that EHR searches do not adequately consider the complexity of patients, making it challenging to stratify those that would benefit most from an SMR. Additionally, participants highlighted a lack of sensitivity and specificity in the current search mechanisms (meaning the searches either do not identify all the intended patients or identify too many).

“The actual indicator that my team has been focusing on is supposed to be the ones where patients are prone to medication errors … but when I actually look at the patients, I haven’t got a clue why the actual computer system has decided that most of the time.” (Participant 1, Pharmacist FG1)

HCPs were concerned that the identification of patients who would benefit from an SMR could exceed the clinical capacity of the staff available to meet the need. They felt that any digital tool used to prioritise patients’ needs should match the clinical capacity of the practice.

“The tools have to be a bit cleverer … We can generate a list of patients today … PCNs at the moment essentially do that, but what you have to do is almost the list that’s generated to the capacity … People would not switch it on if they felt that it could generate lots of patients you would not then see.” (Policy-maker interview)

b. Organisational challenges and patient factors affecting patient engagement for a SMR

GPs or secondary care clinicians (excluding clinical pharmacologists) often conducted opportunistic medication reviews, compared to the proactive SMRs conducted by PCN pharmacists. In alignment with the DES requirements, HCPs described how the task of conducting an SMR was contingent upon organisational contracts, practice size, and staff availability. The presence of a PCN pharmacist for SMRs facilitated streamlined tasks, enabling GPs to focus on patients with more complex medical profiles. GPs voiced concerns about burnout in areas where demand for SMR exceeded the clinical capacity to undertake them. This challenge was particularly pronounced in regions of lower socioeconomic status where patients often presented with complex multmorbidity and polypharmacy at a younger age, especially those with co-morbid mental and physical health problems. Moreover, respondents felt that patients residing in deprived areas were less likely to attend scheduled SMRs, compelling GPs to resort to opportunistic reviews. This highlights potential inequity in access to SMRs and overall health surveillance.

“In the poorer area of the practice there’s no clinical pharmacist, that’s all done opportunistically, if done at all, by the GP partners there. I think that there’s a couple that are approaching burn out, if not complete burn out and the practice is almost run by locums. So, when I’m going in there, it’s quite tough and I will often see medications that are inappropriately prescribed, polypharmacy, several of the same drugs, and I will opportunistically undertake a structured medical review.” (Participant 3, GP FG1)

c. Time consuming “detective work”

Whether HCPs identified patients proactively or opportunistically, the preparation time for a medication review ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour. Several factors influenced this preparation time, including the availability of information, case complexity, barriers to accessing information, information density, and time constraints. The challenge in finding and collating information within the patient’s clinical records constituted a significant portion of the preparation time. For instance, discharge letters from hospitals are often located as attachments within the patient record, requiring HCPs to locate and read the letter. These necessary preparatory activities take away from the face-to-face time available with the patient.

“Probably double the amount of prep time than it was actually with the patient. I mean, granted we did spend a while with the patient because we both like to talk, and the patient certainly did, but I think, and that’s the problem, isn’t it? You get the best information out of your patient when you let them talk and you let them tell you lots of things that you wouldn’t normally ask, but you haven’t got the time to do that so it’s tricky isn’t it to find the balance. But the biggest thing with the prep time was getting the information.” (Participant 3, Pharmacist FG1)

HCPs also conveyed frustration regarding the substantial time required to determine the original indication for a particular prescription and the ongoing necessity for it, even during major transition periods such as a patient’s admission to a care home.

“We don’t get enough actual structured reviews, so they’ll be getting put on medication, people in care homes, and then left on those medicines. There’s no recognition of the changes. As you move in a care home, you’re generally more frailer, your renal function, haematic function might not be as great and, you know, you’re not moving as much, so your need for some medicines might not be as great as it was when the medicine was first started.” (Policy-maker interview)

Although it is possible within the EHR system to link the prescription of an individual drug to its clinical indication, in clinical practice this is usually not done as it is time consuming. As such, indications for prescribed medicines are recorded in the free text for the consultation which can easily become obscured over time within the extensive information contained in the clinical record. Examining the clinical free text for this information was emphasised as a challenge in efficiently conducting SMRs.

“Although in my letters I would clearly state to the GP why I am prescribing the second line antipsychotic just so that people know, but over time that tends to get lost, the rationale for that prescribing tends to get lost and before you know you leave post, somebody else comes and begins to increase that second antipsychotic you know, so that becomes a problem.” (Participant 1, Psychiatrist FG)

Moreover, existing EHRs are not adept at presenting patient histories in a manner conducive to HCPs pinpointing areas for potential deprescribing. This deficiency in the system leads to a cumulative high pill burden for patients, as illustrated in the quote below.

“At the age of [18-20], I was diagnosed with bipolar. I am now [71-74] and I have lived for that period of time on medication, a lot of medication actually … I counted the number of tablets and my boxes on my bedside the other day and there was 13 different tablets, so that is what I am being prescribed by my GP.” (Patient 1, Mental and physical co-morbidities FG)

Patients also expressed uncertainty about the initial reasons for starting medications. Patients reported receiving medications for many years and being unsure whether the medication was still necessary.

“She is also on a daily injection of adult growth hormone which another consultant put her on at the time and she has been having them for probably 10 to 15 years, and no-one seems to know now who initially prescribed it and who is in charge of that. I am concerned, does she really need them? She is having them every day … Initially it was an asset to go with the immunodeficiency but now I don’t really know.” (Patient 5, Mental and physical co-morbidities FG)

d. SMRs require multiple appointments

SMRs typically lasted a minimum of 30 minutes, often extending beyond this duration. The variability in duration was contingent upon the patient’s complexity and the focused nature of the review. Allowing adequate time to address broader health concerns was deemed crucial, enabling the identification of potential issues requiring deeper exploration by the clinician.

HCPs acknowledged that SMRs were not a singular event, and patients might necessitate multiple appointments for a comprehensive review. Consequently, EHR systems were recognised as needing functionality to alert HCPs to schedule additional appointments after the initial SMR, emphasising the iterative and ongoing nature of medication reviews.

“The first time I see patients, you want almost a bit of a holistic conversation, but actually when you start making interventions you go with what matters most to the patient or where the biggest risk is and you then table the others … You can imagine that being 2 or 3 hours in 4 different appointments before you get to the bottom of where you want to be … I think we had to contact on average about 2 to 3 times per patient, but there were more complex patients as well … I don’t think you can stop medicines or optimise medicines without seeing that patient again as least once.” (Policy-maker interview)

Patients expressed a desire to be involved in the decision-making during reviews and valued the opportunity to discuss issues such as how medications fit into their routines and other resources that may be available to them.

"I’ve got a series of chronic things, take a load of pills and they’re each for separate things, and I have been concerned for years whether there’s any interaction with them, between them. And also they make me feel tired all the time and perhaps there are some of them where I could actually get rid of them." (Patient 1, Older people with frailty FG)

Patients also emphasised the importance of their views being considered throughout the process.

“Success for me is when my doctor or pharmacy, I have an appointment with them, they listen to what I am saying, I feel valued.” (Patient 1, Complex multimorbidity FG)

e. Influence of healthcare context on delivering SMR

The duration of conducting a SMR was also contingent on the specific healthcare setting in which it took place. One pharmacist highlighted that SMRs conducted in care homes lacked a strict time limit and were oriented towards achieving specific outcomes, such as the number of medicines deprescribed in particular patient groups. This reflected the contextual variability in the conduct and objectives of SMRs, emphasising the need for flexibility in the approach based on the healthcare environment and patient population.

“We were just told take whatever time you need but because we were not measured on the quantity, we were measured on the quality, and we were recorded the number of medicines basically stopped and in particular groups actually so, and then that would have gone on the report because that was the way of showing what we were doing and the basic value for money I guess.” (Participant 1, Pharmacist FG1)

The emphasis placed on a medication list varied depending on the reviewer and the healthcare setting. A pharmacist working in secondary care articulated a tendency to allocate less attention to certain medicines in a hospital setting, prioritising focus on medications more likely to cause harm. This perspective highlights the nuanced approach that different HCPs may adopt based on their expertise and the specific context in which they operate.

“At the moment, the bisphosphonate would be something that I’m less concerned about it a very high acuity environment, that’s the thing that I’m probably going to, maybe if I get a chance, write in the discharge summary for the GP to check up on whether or not that’s still appropriate. Whereas I’m chasing those big harms.” (Participant 2, Pharmacist FG1)

f. Factors influencing deprescribing discussions

Discussions around deprescribing between HCPs and patients were reported to be influenced by several factors. These included the specific type of medicine to be deprescribed, the patient’s willingness to discontinue the medication, sociodemographic location, availability of additional health services in the area, whether the medication was initially prescribed in primary or secondary care and the existence of pre-established stopping criteria for certain medications (e.g., bisphosphonates for more than 5 years). Additionally, HCPs and patients acknowledged a degree of reluctance to engage in deprescribing due to perceived potential risks associated with the cessation of certain medications. These multifaceted factors contribute to the complexity and individualised nature of deprescribing discussions within the healthcare context.

“I find it really, really difficult because all of the guidelines will say, oh, you should have this patient on statins, etc., and you think I really probably shouldn’t they’re 95, but having stopped them in the past then a patient unfortunately ends up with a stroke, they go to hospital, the hospital tells them it’s because their GP stopped their statin and puts them back on.” (Participant 2, GP FG2)

“The antidepressant one is interesting. So, I did work for 9 years in a really deprived area… SSRIs for a long time and they were pretty reluctant to come off it but usually willing to accept if it didn’t work out just put them back on it. It just meant in a much more middle-class area there’s the opposite where they’re all desperate to come off it and probably coming off it far too soon. So, I don’t think it needs to be doctor-led, it seems to be more about their external pressures and there’s been a lot of areas done in deprived communities with link workers and social prescribers and I think if you’re going to look at polypharmacy in these sort of groups then that’s probably the way to do it stopping all their meds.” (Participant 4, GP FG1)

In one case, a pharmacist highlighted the challenges associated with decision-making when optimising medicines for complex, younger patients, emphasising the impact of side-effects on their quality of life. Equally, the importance of considering quality of life in frail older adults with polypharmacy was acknowledged, although perceived as less complicated than in younger adults.

"I know well that’s it isn’t it, it’s not necessarily that they’re a complex medicine it’s that there is evidence to say that this can prolong your life but it’s causing them that much upset, so it’s, for me it’s not necessarily the, I can’t think of any particular group of drug its more the younger you get, you know 50 is very young and that you have got a lot of life left to live so that’s when it becomes more of a clinical decision for me that as a pharmacist I don’t feel like I would be able to make" (Participant 1, Pharmacist FG1)

a. Poor communication & data sharing between primary and secondary care

HCPs identified the challenge of extracting information from hospital discharge letters as a key source of frustration. Patients, in particular, assumed that EHRs seamlessly connected primary and secondary care, and in some cases, their community pharmacy. This assumption left patients bewildered and, in certain cases, reliant on the HCPs knowing the complete narrative behind their health records. The disjointed communication and misconceptions surrounding record integration emphasised the need for improved interoperability to enhance the continuum of care.

“We will be waiting a week for an outpatient letter to come through and it’s really confusing, stop this, change that, increase the dose here, and you’re kind of stuck in the middle. So sometimes the patient will have left that meeting there and it will be ‘like go and see your GP and they will do this bit’, well [that’s] not happening until I’ve got that letter. There is that real mismatch of communication.” (Participant 1, GP FG2)

“When the repeat prescription came through, despite the fact that the surgery had received the discharge letter, everything was all wrong, and this is just one of those things that happens. So, you get a review and it is whether that data from that review and the story behind it and who it goes back to and whether it is acted on, I think that is important.” (Patient 3, Complex multimorbidity FG)

Communication gaps between GPs, specialist clinicians, and patients were evident due to varying expectations. GPs expressed challenges in managing specialist medications with patients, including concerns about patients’ ability to self-manage their medicines. These challenges highlighted aspects of fragmented care between primary care and specialist clinicians. HCPs also cited difficulties and reluctance in communicating and potentially engaging in conflict with specialist doctors. Participants described specialist doctors as lacking a holistic view when prescribing for patients, favouring certain medicines, and having limited knowledge in drug interactions.

Participants noted that central nervous system medicines had complicated medication regimens and hence required more coordinated care and responsibility between the specialist prescriber and GP. Addressing these challenges calls for enhanced collaboration, knowledge exchange, and a holistic approach to patient care between primary care and specialist clinicians.

“I find it, with the pain management clinic, they stop medication, give you a list of all these other tablets you need to start to see how things go and then sort of leave you to it, discharge the patient in your hands and expect you to sort of manage it all. And the same thing is with migraine and headaches from neurology. That’s just a minefield … I think when you’re in specialty, you feel that you can give any sort of long protracted complicated regime and the patient is just going to manage it because that’s the only medication that you think that they’re on. So yeah, they can be quite difficult.” (Participant 5, GP FG1)

“He [GP] says that we can’t actually change any medication to do with your bipolar, that has got to be done by your psychiatrists … I don’t think they would change anything to do with psychiatry.” (Patient 1, Mental and physical co-morbidities FG)

b. Difficulties managing mental health medication

Mental health medication and management emerged as a consistent sub-theme across key HCP stakeholder groups, irrespective of their professional background. Both doctors and pharmacists described difficulties in monitoring and adjusting psychiatric medicines, including uncertainties about how to address specific issues related to psychiatric medicines. Participants expressed a sense of being ‘out of their depth’, particularly concerning antipsychotic medicines. They conveyed a lack of confidence in assessing the risks and benefits of antipsychotic prescribing, feeling deskilled in this specific area of medication management, and finding it challenging to safely challenge prescribers. This sense of unease prompted participants to seek ways of contacting the mental health team, only to encounter additional hurdles, such as difficulties in locating relevant information within patient records to facilitate multidisciplinary coordinated patient care.

“But the other one is someone with very complex psychiatric problems, still maybe under the mental health team, and I haven’t got really access to the details apart from maybe I’ve got, you know, some of the other diagnoses. But if I think maybe one of those drugs is potentially causing more harm than could then I’m not clear how then to action that and who to speak to and who were they actually seeing” (Clinical Pharmacologist 1, Clinical Pharmacologist FG)

For example, a clinical pharmacologist explained that evaluating the success of managing antipsychotics is not as straightforward as assessing physical health conditions. This complexity may contribute to the observed lack of confidence among HCPs when it comes to deprescribing psychiatric medicines. The nuanced nature of mental health outcomes, compared to more tangible markers of success in physical health, adds an additional layer of intricacy to the decision-making process in psychiatry. This includes the complexity of managing mental health medication.

“The biggest challenge group that I think we face in a deprived area is the patients who are on long term opioid medication, long term neuropathic meds, they’ve probably got a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, they’ve probably got personality disorder plus / minus mental health problems. And the issues that we have is that they’ve almost been sequentially added medication on because GPs don’t really often know what to do with them unless you have a special interest in that field like I do. And when they go and see pharmacists, they are very challenging to pharmacists and pharmacists don’t have the clinical knowledge to be able to sift through what can often be quite dramatic presentations.” (GP 1, GP FG1)

c. Challenges around anticholinergic medicines

Anticholinergic medicines, which inhibit the neurotransmitter acetylcholine involved in numerous physiological functions, has been associated with adverse outcomes such as cognitive decline and falls, particularly when multiple anticholinergic medicines are used concurrently (termed anticholinergic burden).(15, 16) GPs, clinical pharmacologists, and pharmacists described the importance of reviewing and deprescribing anticholinergic medicines where possible. However, the process of calculating anticholinergic burden (ACB) in frail, older adults is time consuming, primarily due to the absence of automated calculators embedded within the EHR system.

Doctors and pharmacists expressed frustrations around the re-prescribing of anticholinergics after deprescribing them. They attributed the persistence of high ACB to limitations in prescribing guidelines and a scarcity of alternative options to replace anticholinergic drugs. These challenges highlighted the need for tools within EHR systems to facilitate efficient assessment of ACB, alongside a broader exploration of prescribing guidelines and alternatives to enhance deprescribing practices.

“One of the things that I often see in general practice is that there’s lots of anticholinergics, usually amitriptyline because it’s kind of given out for other reasons for what it’s licensed for. So, sleep is probably the most common thing that I see it used for, or avoiding long term opioids in chronic arthritic pain, and often that’s because we have other options for them but we’re not allowed to prescribe them. So, melatonin is probably the most common thing that we could put them on which has a lot better safety profile, but we are just completely discouraged from prescribing it. And likewise access to other interventions that would help arthritic pain rather than putting them on NSAIDS which obviously carry risk or opioids which aren’t overly effective outside the acute pain window. It’s often the lack of other stuff that raises all of the anticholinergic burden.” (GP 1, GP FG1)

Participants welcomed any digital tool that could streamline routine work processes, including information retrieval, automated dose calculations, and assessing the risk of developing diseases to optimise medicines during a SMR in a patient-centred manner, with the goal of enhancing efficiency in the medication optimisation process.