ObjectiveTo synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults.DesignA qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings.SettingAll healthcare settings.ParticipantsMedical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults.OutcomesPrescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults.Results21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported.ConclusionsA multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is an increasingly common neurological disease process. Despite the wide prevalence of cSDH, there remains a lack of consensus regarding numerous aspects of its clinical management. We provide an overview of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cSDH and discuss several controversial management issues, including the timing of post-operative resumption of anticoagulant medications, the effectiveness of anti-epileptic prophylaxis, protocols for mobilization following evacuation of cSDH, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the various techniques of surgical evacuation. A PubMed search was carried out through October 19, 2010 using the following keywords: "subdural hematoma", "craniotomy", "burr-hole", "management", "anticoagulation", "seizure prophylaxis", "antiplatelet", "mobilization", and "surgical evacuation", alone and in combination. Relevant articles were identified and back-referenced to yield additional papers. A meta-analysis was then performed comparing the efficacy and complications associated with the various methods of cSDH evacuation. There is general agreement that significant coagulopathy should be reversed expeditiously in patients presenting with cSDH. Although protocols for gradual resumption of anti-coagulation for prophylaxis of venous thrombosis may be derived from guidelines for other neurosurgical procedures, further prospective study is necessary to determine the optimal time to restart full-dose anti-coagulation in the setting of recently drained cSDH. There is also conflicting evidence to support seizure prophylaxis in patients with cSDH, although the existing literature supports prophylaxis in patients who are at a higher risk for seizures. The published data regarding surgical technique for cSDH supports primary twist drill craniostomy (TDC) drainage at the bedside for patients who are high-risk surgical candidates with non-septated cSDH and craniotomy as a first-line evacuation technique for cSDH with significant membranes. Larger prospective studies addressing these aspects of cSDH management are necessary to establish definitive recommendations.

The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS), created originally by American psychologist John Flanagan in the 1970's, has been adapted for use in chronic illness groups. This paper reviews the development and psychometric testing of the QOLS. A descriptive review of the published literature was undertaken and findings summarized in the frequently asked questions format. Reliability, content and construct validity testing has been performed on the QOLS and a number of translations have been made. The QOLS has low to moderate correlations with physical health status and disease measures. However, content validity analysis indicates that the instrument measures domains that diverse patient groups with chronic illness define as quality of life. The QOLS is a valid instrument for measuring quality of life across patient groups and cultures and is conceptually distinct from health status or other causal indicators of quality of life. Why assess Quality of Life in chronic illness?Quality of life (QOL) measures have become a vital and often required part of health outcomes appraisal. For populations with chronic disease, measurement of QOL provides a meaningful way to determine the impact of health care when cure is not possible. Over the past 20 years, hundreds of instruments have been developed that purport to measure QOL [1]. With few exceptions, these instruments measure what Fayers and colleagues [2,3] have called causal indicators of QOL rather than QOL itself. Health care professionals need to be clear about the conceptual definition of QOL and not to confound it with functional status, symptoms, disease processes, or treatment side-effects [4][5][6][7]. Although the definition of QOL is still evolving, Revicki and colleagues define QOL as "a broad range of human experiences related to one's overall well-being. It implies value based on subjective functioning in comparison with personal expectations and is defined by subjective experiences, states and perceptions. Quality of life, by its very natures, is idiosyncratic to the individual, but intuitively meaningful and understandable to most people [[8], p. 888]." This definition denotes a meaning for QOL that transcends health.

The use of multiple medicines, known as polypharmacy, poses a risk of harm that is greatest in older adults with multimorbidity. Deprescribing aims to improve health outcomes through ceasing medicines that are no longer necessary or appropriate due to changing clinical circumstances and patient priorities. General practitioners (GPs) and consultant pharmacists (CPs) are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing in primary care in partnership with older adults who present with inappropriate polypharmacy. In this article, we explore GPs' and CPs' views about inappropriate polypharmacy, the reasoning they apply to deprescribing in primary care, and identify factors that support or inhibit this process. Using focus group methodology and the Framework Method for thematic analysis, two major themes were discerned from the data-working through uncertainty and risk perception as a frame of reference. The findings provide important insights when devising methods for advancing and supporting deprescribing in primary care.