Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 26, 2025

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
The multimorbidity collaborative medication review and decision making (MyComrade) study: a pilot cluster randomised
Collette Kirwan1,2, Lisa Hynes3, Nigel Hart4
1Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. collette.kirwan@nuigalway.ie.
Background:
While international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MyComrade (MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care.
Aim:
The pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial of the MyComrade intervention across two healthcare systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).
Design:
A pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted (clustered at general practice level), using specific progression criteria and a process evaluation framework.
Setting:
General practices in the ROI and NI.
Participants:
Eligible practices were those in defined geographical areas who had GP's and Practice Based Pharmacists (PBP's) (in NI) willing to conduct medication reviews. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years and over, with multi morbidity and on ten or more medications.
Intervention:
The MyComrade intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care, using a planned collaborative approach guided by an agreed checklist, within a specified timeframe.
Outcome Measures:
Feasibility outcomes, using pre-determined progression criteria, assessed practice and patient recruitment and retention and intervention acceptability and fidelity. Anonymised patient-related quantitative data, from practice medical records and patient questionnaires were collected at baseline, 4 and 8 months, to inform potential outcome measures for a definitive trial. These included (i) practice outcomes-completion of medication reviews; (ii) patient outcomes-treatment burden and quality of life; (iii) prescribing outcomes-number and changes of prescribed medications and incidents of potentially inappropriate prescribing; and (iv) economic cost analysis. The framework Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT) in conjunction with a priori progression criteria and process evaluation was used to guide the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.
Results:
The recruitment of practices (n = 15) and patients (n = 121, mean age 73 years and 51% female), representing 94% and 38% of a priori targets respectively, was more complex and took longer than anticipated; impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Retention rates of 100% of practices and 85% of patients were achieved. Both practice staff and patients found the intervention acceptable and reported strong fidelity to the My Comrade intervention components. Some practice staff highlighted concerns such as poor communication of the reviews to patients, dissatisfaction regarding incentivisation and in ROI the sustainability of two GPs collaboratively conducting the medication reviews. Assessing outcomes from the collected data was found feasible and appropriate for a definitive trial. Two progression criteria met the 'Go' criterion (practice and patient retention), two met the 'Amend' criterion (practice recruitment and intervention implementation) and one indicated a 'Stop - unless changes possible' (patient recruitment).
Conclusion:
The MyComrade intervention was found to be feasible to conduct within two different healthcare systems. Recruitment of participants requires significant time and effort given the nature of this population and the pairing of GP and pharmacist may be more sustainable to implement in routine practice.
Trial Registration:
Registry: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80017020 ; date of confirmation 4/11/2019; retrospectively registered.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Rheumatic Heart Disease III: Medical Management
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Methods of Documentation II: POMR