Dataset Information

Investigation of systems to prevent diversion of opiate drugs in general practice in the UK.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Statutory regulations govern the procedures that must be followed by general practitioners (GPs) in the UK to minimise the risk of diversion of prescribed opiate drugs for illicit use. However, evidence presented at the trial of Harold Shipman, a GP convicted of murdering patients with diamorphine, suggests that the regulations and monitoring of GPs' prescribing are failing. AIM:To assess the policies followed by general practices in Leicestershire and Rutland with regard to the controlled drugs regulations. METHODS:A semi-structured interview was administered to a purposeful sample of lead GPs to explore how their practices applied the regulations. The controlled drugs registers and drug storage facilities in these practices were inspected. A questionnaire was sent to all the remaining practices to seek information about their application of the regulations, any concerns they had about the regulations, and any suggestions for improving them. RESULTS:Of the 142 general practices in Leicestershire, the lead GP in 14 took part in the interviews. Respondents expressed dissatisfaction with current policies including the design of controlled drug registers, and generally supported the reintroduction of an inspection scheme. Ninety (70.9%) of the 127 practices to whom the questionnaire was sent responded and, of these, 31 (34.4%) no longer held a supply of controlled drugs. Those that did hold controlled drugs indicated concern about the regulations, confusion about some aspects including the return and disposal of unused drugs, and a desire for advice and support in the implementation of the regulations. Forty two of the 59 respondents who held a supply of controlled drugs (71.2%) would welcome regular inspection. CONCLUSION:GPs are confused about the controlled drugs regulations and have little support in implementing them. The suspension of inspection schemes has reduced the amount of advice and support available to them and, in consequence, the regulations are interpreted differently in different practices. These findings are cause for concern about the risk of diversion of controlled drugs, and illustrate how patient safety systems can decay when they are not maintained.

SUBMITTER: Baker R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1758056 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Investigation of systems to prevent diversion of opiate drugs in general practice in the UK.

Baker R R Moss P P Upton D D Pankhania J J

Quality & safety in health care 20040201 1

<h4>Background</h4>Statutory regulations govern the procedures that must be followed by general practitioners (GPs) in the UK to minimise the risk of diversion of prescribed opiate drugs for illicit use. However, evidence presented at the trial of Harold Shipman, a GP convicted of murdering patients with diamorphine, suggests that the regulations and monitoring of GPs' prescribing are failing.<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the policies followed by general practices in Leicestershire and Rutland with rega ...[more]

PMID: 14757795

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of opiate substitution treatment at the beginning and end of treatment and according to duration of treatment.DesignProspective cohort study. Setting UK General Practice Research Database.ParticipantsPrimary care patients with a diagnosis of substance misuse prescribed methadone or buprenorphine during 1990-2005. 5577 patients with 267?003 prescriptions for opiate substitution treatment followed-up (17?732 years) until one year after the expiry of their last prescription, the date of death before this time had elapsed, or the date of transfer away from the practice.Main outcome measuresMortality rates and rate ratios comparing periods in and out of treatment adjusted for sex, age, calendar year, and comorbidity; standardised mortality ratios comparing opiate users' mortality with general population mortality rates.ResultsCrude mortality rates were 0.7 per 100 person years on opiate substitution treatment and 1.3 per 100 person years off treatment; standardised mortality ratios were 5.3 (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 6.8) on treatment and 10.9 (9.0 to 13.1) off treatment. Men using opiates had approximately twice the risk of death of women (morality rate ratio 2.0, 1.4 to 2.9). In the first two weeks of opiate substitution treatment the crude mortality rate was 1.7 per 100 person years: 3.1 (1.5 to 6.6) times higher (after adjustment for sex, age group, calendar period, and comorbidity) than the rate during the rest of time on treatment. The crude mortality rate was 4.8 per 100 person years in weeks 1-2 after treatment stopped, 4.3 in weeks 3-4, and 0.95 during the rest of time off treatment: 9 (5.4 to 14.9), 8 (4.7 to 13.7), and 1.9 (1.3 to 2.8) times higher than the baseline risk of mortality during treatment. Opiate substitution treatment has a greater than 85% chance of reducing overall mortality among opiate users if the average duration approaches or exceeds 12 months.ConclusionsClinicians and patients should be aware of the increased mortality risk at the start of opiate substitution treatment and immediately after stopping treatment. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of average duration of opiate substitution treatment on drug related mortality.

Project description:BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability; worldwide it is estimated that 16.9 million people have a first stroke each year. Lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs can prevent strokes, but may be underused.Methods and findingsWe analysed anonymised electronic primary care records from a United Kingdom (UK) primary care database that covers approximately 6% of the UK population. Patients with first-ever stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), ≥18 y, with diagnosis between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, were included. Drugs were considered under-prescribed when lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were clinically indicated but were not prescribed prior to the time of stroke or TIA. The proportions of strokes or TIAs with prevention drugs under-prescribed, when clinically indicated, were calculated. In all, 29,043 stroke/TIA patients met the inclusion criteria; 17,680 had ≥1 prevention drug clinically indicated: 16,028 had lipid-lowering drugs indicated, 3,194 anticoagulant drugs, and 7,008 antihypertensive drugs. At least one prevention drug was not prescribed when clinically indicated in 54% (9,579/17,680) of stroke/TIA patients: 49% (7,836/16,028) were not prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 52% (1,647/3,194) were not prescribed anticoagulant drugs, and 25% (1,740/7,008) were not prescribed antihypertensive drugs. The limitations of our study are that our definition of under-prescribing of drugs for stroke/TIA prevention did not address patients' adherence to medication or medication targets, such as blood pressure levels.ConclusionsIn our study, over half of people eligible for lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were not prescribed them prior to first stroke/TIA. We estimate that approximately 12,000 first strokes could potentially be prevented annually in the UK through optimal prescribing of these drugs. Improving prescription of lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs is important to reduce the incidence and burden of stroke and TIA.

Project description:BackgroundAccessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs.MethodsMixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data.ResultsReflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts.ConclusionsGeneral practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

Project description:Background. Cholesterol lowering drugs HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and PPAR? activators (fibrates) have been shown to reduce host inflammation via non-disease specific immunomodulatory mechanisms. Recent studies suggest that commonly prescribed drugs in general practice, statins and fibrates, may be beneficial in influenza-like illness related mortality. This retrospective cohort study examines the association between two lipid lowering drugs, statins and fibrates, and all-cause 30-day mortality following a medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI). Methods. Primary care patient data were retrospectively extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database. The sample comprised 201,179 adults aged 30 years or older experiencing a MAARI episode. Patient exposure to statins or fibrates was coded as separate dichotomous variables and deemed current if the most recent GP prescription was issued in the 30 days prior to MAARI diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression were used for analyses. Adjustment was carried out for chronic lung disease, heart failure, metformin and glitazones, comorbidity burden, socio-demographic and lifestyle variables such as smoking status and body mass index (BMI). Statistical interaction tests were carried out to check for effect modification by gender, body mass index, smoking status and comorbidity. Results. A total of 1,096 (5%) patients died within the 30-day follow up period. Of this group, 213 (19.4%) were statin users and 4 (0.4%) were fibrate users. After adjustment, a significant 35% reduction in odds [adj OR; 0.65 (95% CI [0.52-0.80])] and a 33% reduction in the hazard [adj HR: 0.67 (95% CI [0.55-0.83])] of all-cause 30-day mortality following MAARI was observed in statin users. A significant effect modification by comorbidity burden was observed for the association between statin use and MAARI-related mortality. Fibrate use was associated with a non-significant reduction in 30-day MAARI-related mortality. Conclusion. This study suggests that statin use may be associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality following acute respiratory illness that is severe enough to merit medical consultation. Findings from this study support and strengthen similar observational research while providing a strong rationale for a randomised controlled trial investigating the potential role of statins in acute respiratory infections.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Dataset Information

Investigation of systems to prevent diversion of opiate drugs in general practice in the UK.

Publications

Investigation of systems to prevent diversion of opiate drugs in general practice in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets