Can clinician champions reduce potentially inappropriate medications in people living with dementia? Study protocol for a cluster randomized trial

2Citations
Citations of this article
76Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: For people living with dementia (PLWD) the overuse of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains a persistent problem. De-prescribing trials in the elderly have mixed results. Clinician champions may be uniquely suited to lead efforts to address this challenge. Here we describe the study protocol for a 24-month embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial within two accountable care organizations (ACOs) of such a clinician champion intervention. The specific aims are to (1) assess the effectiveness of a clinician champion on de-implementing PIMs in PLWD, (2) determine if the intervention is associated with a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations attributed to a fall, and (3) examine five implementation outcomes: appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity. Methods/design: Two ACOs agreed to participate: United States Medical Management (USMM) and Oschner Health System. The unit of randomization will be the primary care clinic. A clinician champion will be recruited from each of the intervention clinics to participate in a 6-month training program and then work with clinicians and staff in their clinic for 12 months to reduce the use of PIMs in their PLWD population. For aims 1 and 2, Medicare claims data will be used to assess outcomes. The outcome for aim #1 will be medication possession rates per quarter, for the three therapeutic classes of PIMs among patients with dementia in intervention clinics versus control clinics. For aim #2, we will assess the incidence of falls using a previously validated algorithm. For both aims 1 and 2, we will construct hierarchical models with time period observations nested within patient using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. The key variable of interest will be the treatment indicator assigned based on practice. For aim #3, we will conduct qualitative thematic analysis of documentation by the clinician champions in their project workbooks to evaluate the five implementation outcomes. Discussion: This embedded pragmatic trial will add to our existing knowledge regarding the effectiveness of a clinician champion strategy to de-prescribe potentially inappropriate medication among patients with dementia as well as its appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.govNCT05359679, Registered May 4, 2022

References Powered by Scopus

Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria

7743Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda

4712Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Long-term persistence in use of statin therapy in elderly patients

1094Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Health equity considerations in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's and dementia disease: Results from a methodological review

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Stakeholder Perspectives on Factors Related to Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Adults Receiving Dialysis

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parchman, M. L., Perloff, J., & Ritter, G. (2022). Can clinician champions reduce potentially inappropriate medications in people living with dementia? Study protocol for a cluster randomized trial. Implementation Science, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01237-0

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘24‘2509182736

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

39%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

22%

Researcher 4

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 7

44%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

31%

Social Sciences 2

13%

Engineering 2

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0