MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417524291 · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06894-6

Lessons learned from Canadian family physicians deprescribing medications in older adults – a five-year retrospective review of medico-legal cases

2025· article· en· W4417524291 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey Smith, Cheryl A Sadowski, Justin Lee, Catherine Bernard, Genevieve M. Casey, Katherine Larivière, Patricia J. Finestone, Cathy Zhang, Gary Garber

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Public HealthUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityCanadian Medical Protective Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeprescribingPolypharmacyMultidisciplinary approachGeriatricsMEDLINEBeers CriteriaPatient safetyReceipt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication-related safety incidents are more common in older adults than in younger populations. Medication review and optimization, including deprescribing, are essential components of strategies to reduce medication-related harm. Deprescribing aims to minimize therapeutic burden by reducing medications that no longer provide net clinical benefit or by substituting safer alternatives. Herein we sought to use a national pan-Canadian repository of medico-legal cases to identify opportunities for improving deprescribing practices in primary care for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a five-year retrospective review (2018–2022) of closed Canadian medico-legal cases relating to deprescribing involving family medicine physicians and patients age 65 or older. We analysed cases related to deprescribing and created composite case examples to illustrate both areas for improvement and examples of appropriate care despite the receipt of a complaint or civil legal action (collectively, medico-legal cases). RESULTS: We identified 31 medico-legal cases, of which 29 had undergone expert review. Experts identified areas of improvement related to deprescribing including conducting assessments to determine appropriateness of deprescribing, using a multidisciplinary approach to create a safe tapering plan that includes monitoring and follow-up, establishing clear communication with patients and their authorized substitute decision-makers, and documenting clearly and appropriately. Although experts often explicitly identified these elements as present, they were critical of the deprescribing-related care in half of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Medico-legal cases highlight several key areas for improving deprescribing in primary care, particularly around comprehensive patient assessment to inform deprescribing decision-making and clear communication of treatment plans with relevant decision-makers. The cases also demonstrate that the process of deprescribing and the patient-physician relationship is complex and that complaints can occur even when physicians are safely deprescribing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207