1898 Feasibility study of a hospital deprescribing intervention: CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) is a behaviour change intervention to support geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. The intervention comprises: formulating a deprescribing action plan, workshops, benchmarking reports and weekly briefings between geriatricians and pharmacists. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of the CHARMER intervention and study processes. Method A two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study was undertaken in four hospitals (three intervention, one control) in England in 2022. Data were collected to check completeness and quality, and assess intervention fidelity. Rapid qualitative analysis of staff and patient interviews, intervention implementation observations (action plan launch, pharmacist workshop and geriatrician videos), and study meeting minutes was undertaken. Results Study data were feasible to collect, of sufficient completeness and quality. Geriatrician and pharmacist principal investigators managed intervention implementation. They were able to implement most intervention components with ease and fidelity. Principal investigators felt that dedicated support for intervention implementation would better equip them with the resource and expertise to fidelitously implement all intervention components. Detailed instructions for preparing the action plan and how it might be delivered were desired. Geriatricians and pharmacists who received the intervention found it acceptable. Pharmacists felt that the weekly briefings encouraged them to dedicate time to review medicines and raise with geriatricians, opportunities to deprescribe. Geriatricians indicated that participating in CHARMER allowed them to focus on deprescribing conversations with patients and they involved junior doctors more in the deprescribing process. Conclusion(s) The CHARMER intervention and trial processes were feasible and acceptable. Revisions to support intervention implementation include providing a template action plan for hospitals to adapt; funds for a project manager one day a week to work with CHARMER principal investigators for three-months to oversee implementation, and support from Eastern Academic Health Science Network in the definitive trial (winter 2023).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".