Skip to main content
Download PDF

“Starting to think that way from the start”: approaching deprescribing decision-making for people accessing palliative care - a qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals views

BMC Palliative Care volume 23, Article number: 221 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Deprescribing has been defined as the planned process of reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or are causing harm, with the goal of reducing medication burden while improving patient quality of life. At present, little is known about the specific challenges of decision-making to support deprescribing for patients who are accessing palliative care. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals, this qualitative study aimed to address this gap, and explore the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in-person or via video call, between August 2022 – January 2023. Perspectives on approaches to deprescribing in palliative care; when and how they might deprescribe; and the role of carers and family members within this process were discussed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes. QSR NVivo (Version 12) facilitated data management. Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).

Results

Twenty healthcare professionals were interviewed, including: medical consultants, nurses, specialist pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs). Participants described the importance of deprescribing decision-making, and that it should be a considered, proactive, and planned process. Three themes were developed from the data, which centred on: (1) professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing; (2) changing the culture of deprescribing; and (3) involving the patient and family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making.

Conclusions

This study sought to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for making deprescribing decisions with people accessing palliative care services. A range of healthcare professionals identified the importance of supporting decision-making in deprescribing, so it becomes a proactive process within a patient’s care journey, rather than a reactive consequence. Future work should explore how healthcare professionals, patients and their family can be supported in the shared decision-making processes of deprescribing.

Trial registration

Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).

Peer Review reports

Background

Deprescribing has been defined as the planned process, under the supervision of healthcare professionals, of reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or are causing harm, with the goal of reducing medication burden while improving patient quality of life [1,2,3]. On a global level, there is a growing recognition of the need for deprescribing [4], with the World Health Organisation (WHO) including it as a component of safe medication management, stating the process should be ‘as robust as that of prescribing’ [5]. In a palliative care context, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high [6, 7], deprescribing is an increasingly important care consideration. Indeed, there is growing evidence that deprescribing can be a safe and effective way to improve outcomes for patients using potentially inappropriate medication [8,9,10]. For example, studies concerning the deprescribing of anti-hypertensives, diuretics, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics and statins have demonstrated physical and cognitive benefits, and no significant harm, when these medications are reduced or stopped [11,12,13,14]. Studies have also shown that deprescribing of medications for patients with life limiting illness can improve quality of life [15], as well as reducing the risk of developing adverse drug events [16]. Whilst evidence has demonstrated that some interventions can be used to support deprescribing, practical challenges still remain; these can influence a decision to stop or reduce medication - especially in a palliative care context. For example: how to involve a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals, patients and their family members when making shared decisions about possible deprescribing [3]. A recent systematic review explored these challenges further and highlighted the importance of involving all stakeholders in the deprescribing decision-making process to ensure a joint decision is made between the patient and healthcare professional [17]. Whilst several studies have focused on the broader issues of taking steps towards deprescribing in a palliative care context [18,19,20,21], at present, little is known about the specific challenges of decision-making that support deprescribing to occur. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for prescribing medication, this qualitative study aimed to address this gap, explore the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context.

Methods

Recruitment and sampling

The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist was followed (see Item 1, Supplementary File) [22]. Inclusion criteria comprised: healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists and medical doctors) with experience of prescribing or reviewing medication for patients in receipt of palliative care. To be included in the study, healthcare professionals had to practice in the UK. Recruitment was facilitated by (i) two hospital and two hospice research sites in the North East of England, United Kingdom (UK), (ii) professional palliative care networks of the research team and (iii) social media. All interested participants were emailed a participant information sheet and consent form detailing the purpose and aims of the research. Those who expressed an interest and gave their informed written consent, were enrolled in the study. There was no relationship established between the researcher and participants prior to study commencement or recruitment. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from a variety of job roles and responsibilities, as well as providing generalist or specialist palliative care. Practitioner age and time qualified were also considered within the sampling framework.

Semi-structured interviews

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted by one researcher (ZB, a female postdoctoral researcher with experience of qualitative research) between August 2022 and January 2023. Interviews were conducted remotely (via Zoom) or in-person (face-to-face) depending on participant preference. The semi-structured interview topic guide (see Item 2, Supplementary File for the complete interview guide) was developed based on three pilot interviews (not included in the final participant numbers) and was informed by findings from previous studies conducted by the research team [23, 24], as well as the lived-experiences of patient champions involved in this study (AB and RB). Areas explored included: participants’ perspectives on, and approaches to, deprescribing; when and how they might deprescribe; the role of carers and family members within this process; and exploration of gaps around deprescribing decision-making.

Data analysis

All semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded to enable data analysis. The audio files were encrypted and transcribed verbatim by an external transcription company; audio files were uploaded to an encrypted, password-protected site and immediately following confirmation of accurate transcription were deleted. All interview data were anonymised at the point of transcription and all transcripts were checked for accuracy and correctness by ZB and CLR (a researcher with expertise in qualitative research). Participants did not provide comment on the transcripts, nor feedback on results.

Following reflexive thematic analysis processes, as defined by Braun and Clarke [25, 26], the principle of constant comparison guided an iterative process of data collection and analysis. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed by two researchers (CLR and AR-B, a researcher with expertise in conducting qualitative research) to analyse the interview data. Close and detailed reading of the transcripts allowed the researchers to familiarise themselves with the data. Initial descriptive codes were identified in a systematic manner across the data; these were then sorted into common coding patterns, which enabled the development of analytic themes from the data. The themes were reviewed, refined and named once coherent and distinctive. Two authors (AR-B and CLR) performed the data analysis through discussion and, if agreement was not reached, by consensus with the other members of the research team (AT, AH and CE, with expertise in palliative care and qualitative research). Post-interview field notes enhanced this reflective process. NVivo (version 12) software was used to facilitate data management. The research team were in agreement that data sufficiency and information power [27, 28] occurred after 18 semi-structured interviews and thus, study recruitment stopped following interview number 20; recurring similarity within participant responses, with no new concepts discussed, guided this decision. To ensure confidentiality when using direct participant quotes, non-identifiable pseudonyms are used throughout the research (e.g., Participant 1 and Participant 2 etc.)

Ethical approval

This study was granted ethical approval by the UK National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (reference 305394, date approved: 08.04.2022, South Birmingham REC). Research governance was followed in accordance with Newcastle University and NHS Trust research policies at study sites.

Results

Participant demographics

Twenty participants were recruited and interviewed for this study (participant demographics are described in Table 1). Of the twenty participants interviewed; 7 described their job role as a medical consultant working within various settings in the UK (including palliative medicine and respiratory medicine), 6 participants were nurses providing palliative and end-of-life care to patients across primary or secondary care settings, 4 were specialist pharmacists working across a range of disciplines, including frailty and heart failure, and 3 participants were general practitioners (GPs). Nineteen participants self-reported their ethnicity as White British and one participant identified as British Asian. Twelve of the 20 participants were aged between 40 and 50 years and the mean time qualified in their respective roles was 17 years (SD ± 8.5 years). Five interviews were conducted using video software (Zoom®, n = 5), while the rest were carried out in-person (n = 15). Interviews ranged from 27 to 62 min. There were no refusals to partake, participant dropouts or repeat interviews.

Table 1 Participant demographics
Full size table

From the interviews, many participants described the importance of deprescribing decision-making, and that it should be a considered, proactive, and planned process. To achieve this, three themes and subsequent sub-themes were developed from the data (Fig. 1); these focused on: (1) professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing; (2) changing the culture of deprescribing and (3) involving the patient and family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making. Note the use of arrows in the figure to visually represent the interplay between the themes, and their sub-themes, as part of the bigger picture of achieving proactive deprescribing.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Themes developed to support the delivery of deprescribing as a proactive process, rather than a reactive consequence for patients in receipt of palliative care

Full size image

Theme 1: Professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing

Taking ownership of the deprescribing decision

Participants across all healthcare professional roles shared beliefs that deprescribing was potentially a positive process; however, a number of challenges and concerns were raised, which seemed to influence whether deprescribing was undertaken, or not. The first of these related to taking ownership of the process, and ultimately, the decision-making. A number of participants described a lack of clarity around “whose job is it to do deprescribing?” (Participant 15). In turn, participants discussed feeling “like I don’t want to be treading on other people’s toes” by making decisions about stopping medicines, particularly when patients are receiving care from “a big multidisciplinary team” (Participant 10).

“One of the big barriers I see is ownership… There’s a sense that “I don’t want to touch the rheumatology drugs” or “they’re under the heart failure team so I don’t want to touch any of that” … having some sense professionally, as a cohesive profession about who does it – I think we need to get to that place” (Participant 15, Medical Consultant).

In efforts to take responsibility for deprescribing practices, participants acknowledged that certain healthcare settings may be better suited to make decisions about deprescribing. Two participants proposed making use of multidisciplinary team meetings as an approach to deprescribing decision-making in collaboration with members of the wider care team. One participant stated: “I would always do (deprescribing) in collaboration with, I guess what we’d call, the parent team”, indicating the connection that may be required between specialist palliative care services and other clinical specialities (Participant 12). While another participant highlighted “the beauty of palliative care specialities (for having) an easily accessible multidisciplinary team with a doctor, a specialist nurse, a physio, an OT (occupational therapist) … you can sit round the table and make those decisions and offer advice” (Participant 13). Several participants also emphasised general practice or “care offered by teams based in the community” as preferable settings to make decisions for deprescribing (Participant 1). For example, one participant working within secondary care shared a preference for community-based healthcare professionals to take ownership of deprescribing processes as they can “go into somebody’s home, where they (the patient) will feel more comfortable… in an environment where they feel safe so that open communication can be a bit easier” (Participant 1). The same participant indicated this preference for community-based ownership compared with conversations occurring “if they (the patient) were on a ward setting” (Participant 1). This was echoed by a Nurse Specialist who suggested deprescribing decision making “needs to be done in a calmer environment when you’ve got the time to have those discussions” (Participant 12).

Recognising the challenges associated with deprescribing decisions

Participants recognised the challenges that healthcare professionals face when making decisions around deprescribing medicines for patients in receipt of palliative care. One such challenge related to healthcare professionals’ fear and uncertainty about the repercussions of stopping medications. For example, the hesitancy “of stopping medications because it is not always clear what the outcome of that is going to be” for their patients (Participant 2).

“I think they’re scared of stopping an aspirin and then someone having a stroke… or stopping a NOAC (non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant) and their AF (atrial fibrillation) being uncontrolled and causing a stroke. I think they’re scared of the consequences” (Participant 13, Specialist Pharmacist).

Several participants suggested that this fear may relate to a lack of formal education on deprescribing for healthcare professionals during their training years with one participant stating “F1 (foundation year 1) doctors are scared of doing deprescribing because it feels like a big responsibility, and that’s scary” (Participant 13). Other participants noted caution amongst medical healthcare professionals when it came to deprescribing, and postulated that causes of this could be due to a lack of exposure in training and the lack of normalisation of the process as part of their scope of practice. One participant stated that “if they (medics) learnt about it as undergraduates, like anything, the more you do it, the easier it becomes and the more confident you feel in doing it” (Participant 3) and another suggested “it will take a little time to become a normal thing for prescribers to do more confidently” (Participant 13).

Theme 2: changing the culture of deprescribing

Establishing the culture of deprescribing, by starting from the start

Healthcare professionals shared views around better establishing the culture of deprescribing within clinical practice. They highlighted perspectives around the importance of “starting to think that way from the start” (Participant 11) at the point of prescribing a medication. Participants felt that this change to prescribing culture may also prompt patients to normalise “medicines aren’t always needed to be a forever thing” (Participant 14).

“When you prescribe something… historically people are just like, I’ve written it up and here you go and off you go. But I think maybe just having a real explanation of it… even saying there might come a point where you might want to think about stopping it” (Participant 14, General Practitioner).

A key aspect within establishing a culture of deprescribing centred on participant’s views of the ‘best times’ to have conversations around stopping or reducing medication. One participant discussed a common trend seen in their clinical experience where conversations often happen too late in a patient’s clinical trajectory. They described feeling “like it ends up being, if a patient is just really unwell… it’s probably then when [deprescribing] really starts being thought about” (Participant 14). Another participant working in palliative care, echoed these views and stated “by the time I’ve got involved as a palliative care nurse, it can be too late for some of these conversations. It would be nice if somebody would at least start them earlier on” (Participant 12). Despite recognising the importance of this, the ‘optimal’ timing of these conversations was not identified by participants; instead, they placed emphasis that having conversations around deprescribing should be guided according to a person’s individualised care needs. One proposed timeframe was at the point of “an annual medication review for everyone in respect of what you’re diagnosing and treating” (Participant 12) and then “continually, as and when” thereafter (Participant 11).

Educating and empowering patients

Alongside the need for healthcare professionals to begin establishing the culture of deprescribing, it was also recognised that patient education and empowerment to make decisions around deprescribing was vital. Participants viewed deprescribing as a process ideally underpinned by shared decision-making, which should be “collaborative… we should say (to the patient) “look, in a medical opinion, we could do this, but what do you think?” I think should be a proper open discussion” (Participant 3). In order to achieve this collaboration, participants recognised the need to “give patients information in a way that they a) want and b) understand” so that they feel valued and “feel a true part of the conversation” (Participant 13). One palliative medicine consultant acknowledged the importance of patient empowerment when it came to changing the culture around deprescribing; they viewed medicines education and psychological support as vital tools to achieve supportive deprescribing and understood the worry that may accompany people having to think - and make decisions - about potentially stopping medications.

“It’s probably the first time they’ve been asked, “What does this drug really mean to you? Would it worry you if you had to stop it? What do you think it’s doing for you?” Those are quite big conversations.” (Participant 15, Medical Consultant).

Theme 3: involving patients (and others) in deprescribing decision-making

Acknowledging the priorities of patients, alongside others involved in their care

Healthcare professionals recognised the need to involve patients closely in conversations and decisions around deprescribing, particularly taking into consideration their priorities when it comes to medication. A number of participants reflected on the importance of individualisation and tailoring deprescribing conversations to each specific person, rather than adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach. One participant reflected on focusing on an individual’s preferences about taking medications, recognising that there may be discrepancies between their own clinical judgement about the necessity of a medication and the desire of a person to take it; they felt it important to voice both sides of the conversation and help the patient make an informed choice about deprescribing. From this, the importance of establishing the priorities of the patient was considered essential in deprescribing decision-making.

“Focusing on what we know what is important for that person… if somebody turned around to me and said, “I’m terrified of dying of a stroke, is it alright if I keep taking the statins?” the answer would be “absolutely yes”, and saying, “Well, what are your priorities in your remaining weeks, months, years of life, and what would you like us to focus on as healthcare professionals?” (Participant 4, Medical Consultant).

Taking time to understand what influences a patient to take their medications was recognised by participants. It appeared important to appreciate that some patients may not want to make any changes with their medication at the point of an initial deprescribing conversation taking place; it was recognised that this may change over time, with fluctuations in their symptoms, disease trajectory, prognosis or even shifts in a person’s preferences or priorities around their care.

Whilst it was important to have a patient voice present in those discussions, healthcare professionals also recognised the importance of acknowledging priorities of others involved in their care, such as family, friends and caregivers. Healthcare professionals acknowledged the day-to-day input that family and carers have with their loved one’s medication, and reported it was vital to have their input into overall deprescribing decisions. One participant discussed the importance of “pre-planning” discussions about deprescribing with relatives, and having these conversations at an early enough stage “when there’s less tightened emotions to give them (relative) a chance to think and input into decisions about medicines, at a pace that is suitable for all parties” (Participant 3).

Participants reflected on the challenges that can sometimes present when making decisions about deprescribing if medication priorities differ between the patient and family member(s). One participant shared an example “where the patient wants to carry on with some medication but the family thought “I don’t think you need that – it’s making you too drowsy”” (Participant 14). They went on to further postulate the implications that continuation of a medication may have for the carer “or family member who feels like “well because you’re more drowsy, I’ve got to come and help you with this and that”” (Participant 14). Another participant discussed the commonality of conflicts between patients and family members when it concerns the trajectory of life-limiting illnesses. Specifically, if a carer or relative “hasn’t accepted that the person is dying, and me coming in and talking about stopping all these meds they’ve been on for years – that’s often the thing that really brings it home to them” (Participant 8).

Reflections on language used to establish shared conversations around deprescribing

Another participant reflected on the influence that language can have when establishing and shaping shared conversations with patients around deprescribing. They reflected on common phrasing used when prescribing and commencing new medicines, believing that often “the message we give as professionals is “once you’re on it, you’re on it forever”. I get why we do that for compliance, concordance … but maybe we need a bit of “this will be reviewed annually and we might change it” phrasing built in” (Participant 15). In doing so, it was deemed helpful to establish and share expectations between the prescriber and the patient relating to the intention and duration of each medication, whilst also involving patient perspectives in the ongoing review process.

Another participant shared an example where language used when starting a medication was a barrier to deprescribing in a specialist palliative care setting. They reflected on how often it is communicated by prescribers: ”never stop this medicine” or “this medicine is so important” that (when discussing deprescribing with one patient) … he just kind of thought as soon as he stopped it, he would die” (Participant 17). Reflections in language were also noted by other participants, specifically when describing successful deprescribing episodes as consultations that are framed in a way to minimise (or avoid) patient fear and/or concern. They recommended using shared language that aligned with “trialling without” a particular medication, as opposed to “stopping it” (Participant 5), so that the patient felt they could have input as an equal partner in the deprescribing decision-making process.

“It’s the framing of how you’re doing it – “we’ll put this to one side. I’m not stopping it, we’ll put it to one side. If you feel any different, you can put the medicine straight back up” (Participant 5, Medical Consultant).

Another participant picked up on the influence of language when discussing deprescribing medication for patients with life-limiting illnesses. In particular, the importance of gently introducing deprescribing concepts that “explain we’re not giving up on them” and “emphasising that we’re on a journey together and they’re not being left high and dry” (Participant 9).

A further participant reflected on the importance of language and terms used to establish a relationship of trust between the healthcare professional and the patient, prior to making a deprescribing decision. For example, to help establish such a relationship they flatten the hierarchy between the patient and themselves, in a bid to “feel that they (patients) can ask things to me that maybe they otherwise won’t” (Participant 10). In doing so, the participant felt the dynamic of the consultation was one of shared decision-making, rather than a “traditional consultation” with a paternalistic approach. Other participants alluded to the power and value of forming relationships between the patient and the prescriber where “trust needs to be at the centre … if they don’t know they can trust you, they might not be comfortable (with deprescribing decisions) … until you’ve built up that rapport” (Participant 1).

Discussion

By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals, this study builds on previous evidence by exploring the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context. This study collated the perspectives from a range of healthcare professional groups working with responsibility for prescribing medication in a palliative care context – a specialist patient cohort, which has previously been under-reported in the deprescribing literature, as well as healthcare research more broadly. A consistent finding across all interviews was that the decision-making to underpin deprescribing approaches should be considered, planned, and done proactively as part of ongoing clinical care, rather than as a separate reactive process as a consequence of a patient’s illness or development of an adverse drug reaction. This was a unique finding from this work, which encompassed elements of professional responsibility and attitudes, alongside a need to change the culture in which prescribing and deprescribing are recognised as similar entities when it comes to safe and effective medicines use. Another unique learning point centres on the use of shared language within deprescribing conversations; framing decision-making consultations with terminology that reflects shared, equal conversations may prove more inclusive and balanced. As well, patient empowerment and person-centred approaches were deemed essential components of deprescribing decision-making; whereby the priorities of patients and others (such as family members or carers) are recognised and included as part of the deprescribing process.

Echoing previous studies in the wider deprescribing literature [29,30,31], healthcare professionals interviewed as part of this study acknowledged the value of forming and establishing trust with patients prior to deprescribing conversations taking place. Indeed, given the emotions that accompany a life-limiting illness, once a positive patient-healthcare professional relationship was formed, participants perceived it was easier to broach the subject of deprescribing. It is not clear from this research if patients perceive all healthcare professionals as the same, but findings in the wider literature suggest that older adults have greater trust in certain healthcare professionals, such as medical doctors, compared to others, like pharmacists [30, 32,33,34]. Further building on elements of trust within deprescribing practices, participants discussed the underpinning uncertainty or fear that is experienced from a healthcare professional standpoint when a decision is made whether to deprescribe. Specifically, participants reported a lack of education built within their professional undergraduate and/or postgraduate training about how to approach deprescribing. In keeping with this study, these findings have been reported by prescribers working in a range of healthcare specialities including mental health [35], geriatric medicine [36,37,38] and wider primary care services [39, 40]. In recognition of the inconsistent and non-standardised implementation of deprescribing within undergraduate education, a curricular framework for approaches to deprescribing has been proposed [41]. In this, recommendations were made aiming to improve the previously reported low prescriber self-efficacy and self-confidence when it comes to deprescribing [42,43,44,45,46,47] – something which future research may seek to evaluate, specifically within specialist patient cohorts like people accessing palliative care services.

Findings in this study echoed the value of building and maintaining interdisciplinary relationships between healthcare professional groups when approaching deprescribing as part of a multi-disciplinary team [38, 48, 49]. As well as this, the significance of shared collaborative conversations between clinicians, patients, and family members or carers was also echoed [17]. Much focus within previous studies has rightly placed patient preferences of deprescribing at the centre [50,51,52], however, future research may wish to further explore the dynamics and interplay between the preferences of others involved in a person’s care. Considering the role that carers and family members play in supporting people in receipt of palliative care [53,54,55,56], a greater understanding of shared patient-relative-clinician triad discussions about deprescribing would be useful to explore.

Another important study finding was the importance of the language used to have shared deprescribing conversations and the language used by healthcare professionals. Studies in wider healthcare literature have previously alluded to the complexity of conversations about end-of-life care and life-limiting illness [57], as well as the challenges of initiating discussions about medicines during periods of clinical deterioration or changes in disease trajectory [58]. Findings from this work show the importance of aligning language with shared expectations and shared decisions between the prescriber and the patient, specifically relating to the intended duration and rationale for each prescribed medication. A recent study by Green et al. [59] recommended suggestions for patient-preferred language that clinicians could use when communicating deprescribing decisions amongst older adults; findings from this and other studies [60, 61] could be transferable to this work, in particular recognition of framing deprescribing decisions around an individual’s priorities and goals [59].

Whilst we believe our results are robust and have important implications for the way in which healthcare professionals approach deprescribing decision-making, we do acknowledge that the majority of our sample was limited to practice within the North East of England thus, the experience of our participants was that of, predominantly, White British females. Including the voices of healthcare professionals from other ethnic groups may have brought previously unheard considerations to the forefront, which may impact or influence deprescribing processes in minoritised groups – given the growing diversity of the patient population within the UK, this warrants further investigation in a bid to ensure cultural competence is embedded within deprescribing decision-making.

There remains a need to develop interventions to promote deprescribing decision-making for patients accessing palliative care services. In particular, there are still gaps in knowledge concerning the needs and challenges of patients and their family members or carers in this context, especially when it comes to the prescribing and deprescribing of medications as an overall component of care. Future research approaches should seek to further explore the steps within shared decision-making of deprescribing to understand how future interventions could best support this process. To achieve this, co-design methodology could be used to collectively combine the views of all people involved in the deprescribing process, including people with lived experience of receiving palliative care, their family members or carers, as well as healthcare professionals. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for prescribing medication, this qualitative study addressed the first steps of this process and could be used to support future co-design work in this area.

Conclusions

This study sought to further explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for making deprescribing decisions with people accessing palliative care services. A diverse range of healthcare professionals identified the importance of supporting deprescribing decision-making so it becomes a proactive process, using shared language, rather than a reactive consequence, within a person’s care journey. The identified themes included professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing decision-making; changing the culture of deprescribing; and, the importance of involving patients and their family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making. Future work should explore how healthcare professionals, patients and their family can best be supported in the shared decision-making processes of deprescribing.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

References

  1. Scott S. Deprescribing: a call for research that supports implementation in practice. In. Vol 29: Oxford University Press UK; 2021:525–526.

  2. Okeowo D, Patterson A, Boyd C, Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Todd A. Clinical practice guidelines for older people with multimorbidity and life-limiting illness: what are the implications for deprescribing? Therapeutic Adv drug Saf. 2018;9(11):619–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shrestha S, Poudel A, Forough AS, Steadman KJ, Nissen LM. A systematic review on methods for developing and validating deprescribing tools for older adults with limited life expectancy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2023;31(1):3–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Long J, Hilmer S. A systematic review of the emerging definition of ‘deprescribing’with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(6):1254–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Organization WH. Medication safety in polypharmacy: technical report World Health Organization;2019.

  6. McNeil MJ, Kamal AH, Kutner JS, Ritchie CS, Abernethy AP. The burden of polypharmacy in patients near the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2016;51(2):178–83. e172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McNeill R, Hanger HC, Chieng J, Chin P. Polypharmacy in palliative care: two deprescribing tools compared with a clinical review. J Palliat Med. 2021;24(5):661–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Navid P, Nguyen L, Jaber D, et al. Attitudes toward deprescribing among adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(7):1948–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Shega JW, Ellner L, Lau DT, Maxwell TL. Cholinesterase inhibitor and N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor antagonist use in older adults with end-stage dementia: a survey of hospice medical directors. J Palliat Med. 2009;12(9):779–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett MJ, Sargent L, Nawaz H, Weintraub D, Price ET, Willis AW. Antimuscarinic anticholinergic medications in Parkinson disease: to prescribe or deprescribe? Mov Disorders Clin Pract. 2021;8(8):1181–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iyer S, Naganathan V, McLachlan AJ, Le Conteur DG. Medication withdrawal trials in people aged 65 years and older: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2008;25:1021–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson K, Stowasser D, Freeman C, Scott I. Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ open. 2014;4(12):e006544.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moonen JE, Foster-Dingley JC, de Ruijter W, et al. Effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in elderly people on cognitive functioning—the DANTE Study Leiden: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1622–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Todd A, Nazar H, Pearson S, Andrew I, Baker L, Husband A. Inappropriate prescribing in patients accessing specialist palliative day care services. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:535–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Oliveira L, Ferreira MO, Rola A, Magalhães M, Ferraz Gonçalves J. Deprescription in advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care. J Pain Palliat Care Pharm. 2016;30(3):201–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. LeBlanc TW, McNeil MJ, Kamal AH, Currow DC, Abernethy AP. Polypharmacy in patients with advanced cancer and the role of medication discontinuation. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):e333–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paque K, Vander Stichele R, Elseviers M, et al. Barriers and enablers to deprescribing in people with a life-limiting disease: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2019;33(1):37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kierner KA, Weixler D, Masel EK, Gartner V, Watzke HH. Polypharmacy in the terminal stage of cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:2067–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garfinkel D, Zur-Gil S, Ben-Israel H. The war against polypharmacy: a new cost-effective geriatric-palliative approach for improving drug therapy in disabled elderly people. IMAJ-RAMAT GAN-. 2007;9(6):430.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Talebreza S, McPherson ML. Recognizing and managing polypharmacy in advanced illness. Med Clin. 2020;104(3):405–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoel RW, Connolly RMG, Takahashi PY. Polypharmacy management in older patients. Paper presented at: Mayo Clinic Proceedings2021.

  22. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Todd A, Al-Khafaji J, Akhter N, et al. Missed opportunities: unnecessary medicine use in patients with lung cancer at the end of life–an international cohort study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(12):2802–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Todd A, Husband A, Andrew I, Pearson S-A, Lindsey L, Holmes H. Inappropriate prescribing of preventative medication in patients with life-limiting illness: a systematic review. BMJ Supportive Palliat care. 2017;7(2):113–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Braun V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: SAGE; 2022.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2015;26(13):1753–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Green AR, Boyd CM, Gleason KS, et al. Designing a primary care–based deprescribing intervention for patients with dementia and multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:3556–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Crutzen S, Baas G, Abou J, et al. Barriers and enablers of older patients to deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication: a focus group study. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:1268.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Todd A, Jansen J, Colvin J, McLachlan AJ. The deprescribing rainbow: a conceptual framework highlighting the importance of patient context when stopping medication in older people. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Graabæk T, Lundby C, Ryg J, Søndergaard J, Pottegård A, Nielsen DS. I simply don’t know, because I don’t know which drugs I get: perspectives on deprescribing among older adults with limited life expectancy and their relatives. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021;128(1):115–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weir K, Nickel B, Naganathan V, et al. Decision-making preferences and deprescribing: perspectives of older adults and companions about their medicines. Journals Gerontology: Ser B. 2018;73(7):e98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Seewoodharry M, Khunti K, Davies MJ, Gillies C, Seidu S. Attitudes of older adults and their carers towards de-prescribing: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2022;39(7):e14801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Plakiotis C, Bell JS, Jeon Y-H, Pond D, O’Connor DW. Deprescribing psychotropic medications in aged care facilities: the potential role of family members. GeNeDis 2014: Geriatr 2015:29–43.

  36. Scott IA, Anderson K, Freeman CR, Stowasser DA. First do no harm: a real need to deprescribe in older patients. Med J Aust. 2014;201(7):390–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Foley R-A, Hurard LL, Cateau D, Koutaissoff D, Bugnon O, Niquille A. Physicians’, nurses’ and pharmacists’ perceptions of determinants to deprescribing in nursing homes considering three levels of action: a qualitative study. Pharmacy. 2020;8(1):17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Scott S, Twigg MJ, Clark A, et al. Development of a hospital deprescribing implementation framework: a focus group study with geriatricians and pharmacists. Age Ageing. 2020;49(1):102–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wallis KA, Andrews A, Henderson M. Swimming against the tide: primary care physicians’ views on deprescribing in everyday practice. Annals Family Med. 2017;15(4):341–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. D’Avanzo B, Agosti P, Reeve E, et al. Views of medical practitioners about deprescribing in older adults: findings from an Italian qualitative study. Maturitas. 2020;134:29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Farrell B, Raman-Wilms L, Sadowski CA et al. A proposed Curricular Framework for an Interprofessional Approach to Deprescribing. Med Sci Educ 2023:1–17.

  42. Farrell B, Richardson L, Raman-Wilms L, de Launay D, Alsabbagh MW, Conklin J. Self-efficacy for deprescribing: a survey for health care professionals using evidence-based deprescribing guidelines. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2018;14(1):18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Turner JP, Edwards S, Stanners M, Shakib S, Bell JS. What factors are important for deprescribing in Australian long-term care facilities? Perspectives of residents and health professionals. BMJ open. 2016;6(3):e009781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun W, Tahsin F, Barakat-Haddad C, Turner JP, Haughian CR, Abbass-Dick J. Exploration of home care nurse’s experiences in deprescribing of medications: a qualitative descriptive study. BMJ open. 2019;9(5):e025606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Clark CM, Hejna M, Shao E, Maerten-Rivera JL, Monte SV, Wahler RG Jr. Knowledge and attitudes of student pharmacists regarding polypharmacy and deprescribing: a cross-sectional study. Pharmacy. 2020;8(4):220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Ng B, Duong M, Lo S, Le Couteur D, Hilmer S. Deprescribing perceptions and practice reported by multidisciplinary hospital clinicians after, and by medical students before and after, viewing an e-learning module. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2021;17(11):1997–2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Barnett NL, Jubraj B, Grant D, Reddy B, Stevenson JM. Medication review, polypharmacy and deprescribing: results of a pilot scoping exercise in undergraduate and postgraduate education. Pharm Educ. 2021;21:126–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Heinrich CH, McHugh S, McCarthy S, Curran GM, Donovan MD. Multidisciplinary DEprescribing review for Frail oldER adults in long-term care (DEFERAL): implementation strategy design using behaviour science tools and stakeholder engagement. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2023.

  49. McCarthy LM, Farrell B, Howell P, Quast T. Supporting deprescribing in long-term care: an approach using stakeholder engagement, behavioural science and implementation planning. Exploratory Res Clin Social Pharm. 2022;7:100168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Holmes HM, Todd A. The role of patient preferences in deprescribing. Clin Geriatr Med. 2017;33(2):165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Aoki T, Yamamoto Y, Ikenoue T, Fukuhara S. Factors associated with patient preferences towards deprescribing: a survey of adult patients on prescribed medications. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41:531–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Forest E, Ireland M, Yakandawala U, et al. Patient values and preferences on polypharmacy and deprescribing: a scoping review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021;43:1461–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Henriksson A, Benzein E, Ternestedt B-M, Andershed B. Meeting needs of family members of persons with life-threatening illness: a support group program during ongoing palliative care. Palliat Support Care. 2011;9(3):263–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nemati S, Rassouli M, Ilkhani M, Baghestani AR. Perceptions of family caregivers of cancer patients about the challenges of caregiving: a qualitative study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32(1):309–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kristjanson LJ, Aoun S. Palliative care for families: remembering the hidden patients. Can J Psychiatry. 2004;49(6):359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Milberg A, Liljeroos M, Wåhlberg R, Krevers B. Sense of support within the family: a cross-sectional study of family members in palliative home care. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Almack K, Cox K, Moghaddam N, Pollock K, Seymour J. After you: conversations between patients and healthcare professionals in planning for end of life care. BMC Palliat care. 2012;11:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Doherty AJ, Boland P, Reed J et al. Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in primary care: a systematic review. BJGP open 2020;4(3).

  59. Green AR, Aschmann H, Boyd CM, Schoenborn N. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633–212633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Jansen J, Naganathan V, Carter SM et al. Too much medicine in older people? Deprescribing through shared decision making. BMJ 2016;353.

  61. Tinetti ME, Naik AD, Dindo L, et al. Association of patient priorities–aligned decision-making with patient outcomes and ambulatory health care burden among older adults with multiple chronic conditions: a nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(12):1688–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement is given to the healthcare professionals who were participants in this study – without their support, the study would not have been possible. Also, thanks are given to the wider PONDER team - Dr. Lisa Baker, Dr. Ellie Bond, and Dr. Rachel Quibell.

Funding

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number Award ID: NIHR202283). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. In addition, authors AT, AH and BH are part-funded by the NIHR Newcastle Patient Safety Research Collaboration (PSRC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Newcastle University, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Zana Bayley, Andy Husband & Adam Todd

  2. Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK

    Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Andy Husband, Catherine Exley, Barbara Hanratty & Adam Todd

  3. Patient and Public Involvement, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Andy Bojke & Rona Bojke

  4. St. Oswald’s Hospice, Regent Avenue, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE3 1EE, UK

    Joanna Elverson

  5. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jesse Jansen

Authors
  1. Anna Robinson-Barella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Lucy Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zana Bayley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andy Husband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andy Bojke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rona Bojke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Catherine Exley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Barbara Hanratty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Joanna Elverson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jesse Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Adam Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.B. led on the day-to-day running of the project and data collection. A.T. oversaw the running of this project as Principal Investigator and provided project management expertise. A.R-B. and C.L.R. led on data interpretation and analysis and writing of this manuscript. C.E. provided methodological expertise on data collection, interpretation, and analysis. J.J., J.E., B.H., A.H. provided topic input, interpretation and analysis. J.E. supported the recruitment of participants. A.B. and R.B. contributed in their appointment as patient champions with lived-experience and ensured appropriateness and sensitivity throughout the entire research process. All authors read, provided comments on, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Todd.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) approval committee (ref 305394).

Consent for publication

As part of the NHS Health Research Authority ethical approval, all participants consented to take part in this study and for the inclusion of quotes to be published; all quotes are anonymised and it is not possible to identify individual participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robinson-Barella, A., Richardson, C.L., Bayley, Z. et al. “Starting to think that way from the start”: approaching deprescribing decision-making for people accessing palliative care - a qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals views. BMC Palliat Care 23, 221 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01523-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01523-2

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us