Pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of simulation training on high‐risk prescribing to older adults by junior physicians

Julie C. Lauffenburger,Matthew F. DiFrancesco,Gauri Bhatkhande,Katherine L. Crum,Erin Kim,Ted Robertson,Rebecca Oran,Kaitlin E. Hanken,Nancy Haff,Maxwell D. Coll,Jerry Avorn,Niteesh K. Choudhry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18862

2024-03-09

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract:Background High‐risk medications like benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for hospitalized older adults, despite guidelines recommending avoidance. Prior interventions have not fully addressed how physicians make such prescribing decisions, particularly when experiencing stress or cognitive overload. Simulation training may help improve prescribing decision‐making but has not been evaluated for overprescribing. Methods In this two‐arm pragmatic trial, we randomized 40 first‐year medical resident physicians (i.e., interns) on inpatient general medicine services at an academic medical center to either intervention (a 40‐minute immersive simulation training) or control (online educational training) groups. The primary outcome was the number of new benzodiazepine, sedative hypnotic, or antipsychotic orders for treatment‐naïve older adults during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the same outcome by all providers, being discharged on one of the medications, and orders for related or control medications. Outcomes were measured using electronic health record data over each intern's service period (~2 weeks). Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for clustering. Results In total, 522 treatment‐naïve older adult patients were included in analyses. Over follow‐up, interns prescribed ≥1 high‐risk medication for 13 (4.9%) intervention patients and 13 (5.0%) control patients. The intervention led to no difference in the number of new prescriptions (Rate Ratio [RR]: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.31–2.35) versus control and no difference in secondary outcomes. In secondary analyses, intervention interns wrote significantly fewer "as‐needed" ("PRN") order types for the high‐risk medications (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.08–0.99), and instead tended to write more "one‐time" orders than control interns, though this difference was not statistically significant (RR: 2.20, 95%CI: 0.60–7.99). Conclusions Although this simulation intervention did not impact total high‐risk prescribing for hospitalized older adults, it did influence how the interns prescribed, resulting in fewer PRN orders, suggesting possibly greater ownership of care. Future interventions should consider this insight and implementation lessons raised. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04668248).

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology