Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Problematic polypharmacy is the prescribing of five or more medications potentially inappropriately. Unintentional prescribing cascades represent an under-researched aspect of problematic polypharmacy and occur when an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is misinterpreted as a new symptom resulting in the initiation of a new medication. The aim of this study was to elicit key stakeholders' perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy, with a focus on prescribing cascades. METHODS: qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with predefined key stakeholder groups. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirty-one stakeholders were interviewed: six patients, two carers, seven general practitioners, eight pharmacists, four hospital doctors, two professional organisation representatives and two policymakers. Three main themes were identified: (i) ADRs and prescribing cascades-a necessary evil. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) expressed concern that experiencing an ADR would negatively impact patients' confidence in their doctor. However, patients viewed ADRs pragmatically as an unpredictable risk. (ii) Balancing the risk/benefit tipping point. The complexity of prescribing decisions in the context of polypharmacy made balancing this tipping point challenging. Consequently, HCPs avoided medication changes. (iii) The minefield of medication reconciliation. Stakeholders, including patients and carers, viewed medication reconciliation as a perilous activity due to systemic communication deficits. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders believed that at a certain depth of polypharmacy, the risk that a new symptom is being caused by an existing medication becomes incalculable. Therefore, in the absence of harm, medication changes were avoided. However, medication reconciliation post hospital discharge compelled prescribing decisions and was seen as a high-risk activity by stakeholders.