BACKGROUND: Due to Switzerland’s shortage of general practitioners (GPs), task shifting through interprofessional collaboration is needed to relieve GPs’ workload and allow the continued provision of quality care. The profession of specialized medical assistant (SMA) was created in Switzerland several years ago to provide a career advancement opportunity for medical practice assistants (MPAs) and intended to counteract the increasing scarcity of resources in primary care. Clinical specialized medical assistants (CSMAs) are trained to care for a set of chronic conditions, such as diabetes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes in practices with and without CSMAs. Further, we aimed to investigate whether evidence exists that CSMA care models may allow for task shifting and the provision of interprofessional care while maintaining a high quality of care and to assess patient experiences with diabetes care in both care models. METHODS: The present study was a paper-based cross-sectional survey of patient data. A total of 171 patients with type 2 diabetes who had been under the care of either a GP with CSMA (91 patients) or a GP without CSMA (80 patients) for at least one year were consecutively recruited for the study. Data were collected from mid-September 2020 to mid-June 2021. For the statistical analyses, we used descriptive statistics and t-tests. RESULTS: Patients from both practice types were comparable in age, gender and diabetes-relevant factors such as Body Mass Index, smoking status and blood pressure. Overall, patients in both models received a high quality of care (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, DTSQ >32/36 points, SGED >75 points) and a low treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ <20/150 points). When comparing patients’ DTSQ, SGED and TBQ in both groups, we found no significant differences in diabetes-specific satisfaction (32.1 [SD 3.6] vs. 32.4 [SD 3.8], p = 0.7), SGED score (80.2 [SD 8.5] vs. 75.9 [SD 4.8], p = 0.18) or treatment burden (19.2 [SD 15.6] vs. 18.8 [SD 21.4], p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: Our comparison of patient-reported outcomes and SGED criteria of patients with type 2 diabetes in practices with and without CSMAs showed an equally high quality of care and a low treatment burden. More research is needed on the long-term effects and benefits of the care provided by CSMAs and which other tasks could be shifted to CSMAs to reduce the burden on GPs in the future. At the same time, an increasing number of patients with type 2 diabetes will require high-quality primary care.

Objective To study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Design Cluster randomised clinical trial. Setting Swiss primary care, between December 2018 and February 2021. Participants Eligible patients were ≥65 years of age with three or more chronic conditions and five or more long term medications. Intervention The intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy centred around an eCDSS was conducted by general practitioners, followed by shared decision making between general practitioners and patients, and was compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care between patients and general practitioners. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included number of medications, falls, fractures, and quality of life. Results In 43 general practitioner clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age 77 (interquartile range 73-83) years; 45% (n=146) women). Twenty one general practitioners with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 general practitioners with 163 patients to the control group. On average, one recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, the results of the intention-to-treat analysis of the improvement in appropriateness of medication (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the number of prescribing omissions (0.90, 0.41 to 1.96) were inconclusive. The same was the case for the per protocol analysis. No clear evidence was found for a difference in safety outcomes at the 12 month follow-up, but fewer safety events were reported in the intervention group than in the control group at six and 12 months. Conclusions In this randomised trial of general practitioners and older adults, the results were inconclusive as to whether the medication review intervention centred around the use of an eCDSS led to an improvement in appropriateness of medication or a reduction in prescribing omissions at 12 months compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Nevertheless, the intervention could be safely delivered without causing any harm to patients. Trial registration NCT03724539Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539

ImportanceInappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions are major drivers of healthcare-related harm. Medication review may help improve pharmacotherapy.ObjectiveTo study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centered around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on medication appropriateness and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared to usual care.Design and SettingThe “Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary Care” (OPTICA) trial is a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted with general practitioners (GPs) and older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy in Swiss primary care settings, between January 2019 and February 2020. The 12-month follow-up was completed in February 2021.ParticipantsEligible patients had to be ≥65 years of age with ≥3 chronic conditions and ≥5 long-term medications.InterventionThe intervention to optimize pharmacotherapy centered around an eCDSS compared to usual care.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe two primary outcomes were the improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilization (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the number of medications, number of falls and fractures and quality of life.ResultsIn 43 GP clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age: 77 years (IQR: 73-83), 45% were female). 21 GPs with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 GPs with 163 patients to the control group. On average, 1 recommendation to stop or start a medication were reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, there were no group differences in the improvement of medication appropriateness (Odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59 to 1.87) nor the number of prescribing omissions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.96) in the intention-to-treat analysis. The per-protocol analysis showed no statistically significant group difference and there were no group differences in the secondary outcomes either.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized trial of GPs and older adults, medication reviews based on the eCDSS reduced inappropriate prescriptions but did not lead to higher appropriateness of patients’ medications. The intervention could be safely delivered to patients without causing any detriment to their health.FundingSwiss National Science Foundation (407440_167465)Key pointsQuestionWhat is the effect of a GP administered medication review intervention supported by an electronic clinical decision support system on medication appropriateness in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy?FindingsThis cluster randomized controlled trial included 43 general practitioners and 323 patients. At the end of the 12-month follow-up period, medication appropriateness and the number of prescribing omissions did not differ between patients who received the intervention and those who received usual care.MeaningThe intervention to optimize pharmacotherapy was feasible and safe to implement in primary care but did not improve overall medication appropriateness nor reduce the number of prescribing omissions.

No abstract

No abstract