MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232985392 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-527999/v1

Spread and Scale of an Electronic Deprescribing Software to Improve Health Outcomes of Older Adults Living in Nursing Homes: Study Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

2021· preprint· en· W4232985392 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc-Eric Nadeau, Justine L. Henry, Todd C. Lee, Émilie Bortolussi‐Courval, Carole Goodine, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkMcGill University Health CentreCentre for Excellence in Mining Innovation
FundersCanadian Frailty NetworkNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationPublic Health AgencyAGE-WELLFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-BrunswickPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsDeprescribingScale (ratio)Randomized controlled trialCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Protocol (science)MedicineNursingWedge (geometry)Nursing homesComputer scienceGeographyIntervention (counseling)PolypharmacyAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Medication overload or problematic polypharmacy is a major problem causing widespread harm, particularly to older adults. Taking multiple medications increases the risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and residents in long-term care (LTC) are frequently prescribed 10 or more medications at once. One strategy to address this problem is for the physician and/or pharmacist to perform regular medication reviews; however, this process can be complicated and time-consuming. With a prescription review, medications may be decreased, changed, or stopped altogether. MedReviewRx is a software that runs an analysis using deprescribing rules to produce a report to guide medication reviews addressing medication overload for residents in LTC. Methods: This study will employ a mixed methods effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study design. To measure effectiveness, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design is planned, which allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. Approximately 1000 residents living in LTC will be recruited from five facilities in New Brunswick. The study will begin with three months of baseline data on rates of deprescribing. Thereafter, every three months a new cluster will enter the intervention mode. The intervention consists of medication reviews augmented with the MedReviewRx software, which will be used by staff and clinicians in the facilities. The estimated study duration is 18-months and the main outcome will be the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed (reduced/stopped or changed to a safer alternative) in the 90 days following a prescription review. The goal is to study the impact of MedReviewRx on medication overload among older adults living in LTC. In typical fashion of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, each cluster acts as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). Qualitative data collected will include resident/caregiver attitudes towards deprescribing and semi-structured interviews with staff working in the long-term care homes. Discussion: This study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. This study will provide valuable information on PIM use, cost savings, and facilitators and challenges associated with medication reviews and deprescribing. This study represents an important step towards understanding and promoting tools to guide safe and rational reduction of PIM use among older adults. Trial registration: NCT04762303, Registered February 21, 2021 https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04762303

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→