How well are general practice trainees prepared for paediatric prescribing?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims and methodology
We invited 232 General Practice Trainees to complete an on-line questionnaire to assess how they rated their training for the task of paediatric prescribing and therapeutics in the community.Results
Of the 166 (71%) respondents who completed the questionnaire, 26.5% recalled specific teaching about paediatric prescribing and 59.6% covering one or more relevant topic during their undergraduate years. Undertaking a paediatric post during vocational training was associated with greater prescribing confidence (P < 0.001); however, 35% of respondents were not intending to undertake such a post.Conclusion
This study suggests that many GP trainees perceive their paediatric prescribing training as inadequate.
SUBMITTER: Isa NM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2675049 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How well are general practice trainees prepared for paediatric prescribing?
Isa N M NM Taylor Michael W MW Helms Peter J PJ McLay James S JS
British journal of clinical pharmacology 20081124 3
<h4>Aims and methodology</h4>We invited 232 General Practice Trainees to complete an on-line questionnaire to assess how they rated their training for the task of paediatric prescribing and therapeutics in the community.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 166 (71%) respondents who completed the questionnaire, 26.5% recalled specific teaching about paediatric prescribing and 59.6% covering one or more relevant topic during their undergraduate years. Undertaking a paediatric post during vocational training was ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:It is unclear whether it is feasible to involve residents in guideline development or adaptation. We designed a multifaceted training program that combines training sessions, a handbook and a documentation tool to assist general practice (GP)-trainees in the adaptation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study is to adapt a database of CPGs by involving GP-trainees and to build evidence-based practice (EBP) learning capacity.We assessed each adaptation process and surveyed all GP-trainees who enrolled in our training program on their views on the program. They were asked to formulate an overall rating for the training and were asked to rate individual aspects of the training program (the training sessions, the handbook and the documentation tool).To date, 122 GP-trainees followed the training and have adapted 60 different CPGs. Overall quality of their work was good. Based on an assessment of the content of the documentation tool, 24 (40%) adapted CPGs rated as good quality and 30 (50%) rated as moderate quality. Only 3 adapted CPGs (5%) were evaluated as being of poor quality. 51 (42%) GP-trainees completed the survey on user satisfaction. 98% (50) of the GP-trainees found the training to be of good overall quality. 86% of the GP-trainees were satisfied with the handbook but satisfaction was lowest for the documentation tool (47% satisfied).It is possible to engage GP-trainees in CPG adaptation using a formal process when provided with training, feedback and documentation tools.
| S-EPMC6013901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prescribing errors are a well recognised cause of adverse incidents and have a direct effect on patients.[1] This impacts on the doctor-family relationship and results in breakdown of trust and communication.[2] This quality improvement project was carried out in the paediatric ward of a district general hospital in Northern Ireland. A retrospective analysis of paediatric prescribing errors between January and December 2013 identified two errors that were felt to be secondary to under-reporting. A baseline audit was subsequently performed that highlighted 32 errors across 12 drug charts. A driver diagram identified three components contributing to prescribing errors and relevant tests of change were developed. The three primary drivers included: education and communication, practical prescribing changes, and medicine reconciliation. Seven interventions were implemented sequentially over a six month period and their effectiveness assessed by a prospective drug chart audit. Ten drug charts were selected at random by the staff nurse allocated to medications on the day of audit. The charts were audited using a predesigned proforma and the total number of errors counted. These were subcategorised and results displayed in graphical format after each intervention. Seven audit cycles were completed in total after each intervention was put into practice. The number of errors (including percentage change following each intervention) is as follows: intervention 1: 32 (+19%); Intervention 2: 31 (+15%); Intervention 3: 17 (-37%); Intervention 4: 12 (-56%); Intervention 5: 15 (-44%); Intervention 6: 7 (-74%); Intervention 7: 10 (-63%). In conclusion, permanent and successful measures are needed to reduce prescribing errors in order to minimise the impact of staff changeover and knowledge deficits.
| S-EPMC4693030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice.DesignQualitative study.Setting20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England.Participants20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients.Main outcome measuresMisunderstandings between patients and doctors that have potential or actual adverse consequences for taking medicine.Results14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor's decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing.ConclusionsPatients' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.
| S-EPMC27293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To investigate if the psychometric qualities of an OSCE consisting of more complex simulated patient encounters remain valid and reliable in the assessment of postgraduate trainees in general practice. METHODS: In this intervention study without control group, the traditional OSCE was formally replaced by the new, complex version. The study population was composed by all postgraduate trainees (second and third phase) in general practice during the ongoing academic year. Data were handled and collected as part of the formal assessment program. Univariate analyses, the variance of scores and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the test qualities. RESULTS: A total of 340 students participated. Average final scores were slightly higher for third-phase students (t-test, p =0.05). Overall test scores were equally distributed on station level, circuit level and phase level. A multiple regression analysis revealed that test scores were dependent on the stations and circuits, but not on the master phase. CONCLUSIONS: In a changing learning environment, assessment and evaluation strategies require reorientation. The reliability and validity of the OSCE remain subject to discussion. In particular, when it comes to content and design, the traditional OSCE might underestimate the performance level of postgraduate trainees in general practice. A reshaping of this OSCE to a more sophisticated design with more complex patient encounters appears to restore the validity of the test results.
| S-EPMC4224044 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore the feasibility of using a broader definition of the appropriateness of prescribing in general practice by developing ways of measuring this broader definition and by identifying possible relationships between different aspects of appropriateness and patient outcomes. DESIGN:A questionnaire study of patients and general practitioners before and after study consultations, supplemented by data collected from patients' medical records and telephone interviews with patients 1 week later. SETTING:General practices in the south of England. PARTICIPANTS:24 general practitioners and 186 of their consulting patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Unwanted, unnecessary, and pharmacologically inappropriate prescriptions; patients' adherence. RESULTS:Before the consultation 42% of patients said they wanted or expected a prescription for their main problem. Prescriptions were written in two thirds (65%) of study consultations, and 7% of these had not been wanted or expected beforehand. Doctors recorded that one in five prescriptions they wrote were not strictly indicated. Of the 92 independent assessments of these prescriptions, four were judged to be inappropriate and in 19 cases the assessors were uncertain. 41% of prescriptions written were wanted, necessary, and appropriate. Subsequently, 18% of patients for whom a prescription had been written were potentially non-adherent and 25% had worries or concerns about their medication. CONCLUSION:The attempt to measure appropriateness of prescribing along the three dimensions of patients', prescribers', and pharmacological perspectives is both feasible and likely to yield valuable insights into the nature of general practice prescribing and patients' use of medicines.
| S-EPMC1743739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine variations across general practices and factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for common infections in UK primary care to identify potential targets for improvement and optimization of prescribing.MethodsOral antibiotic prescribing for common infections was analysed using anonymized UK primary care electronic health records between 2000 and 2015 using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The rate of prescribing for each condition was observed over time and mean change points were compared with national guideline updates. Any correlation between the rate of prescribing for each infectious condition was estimated within a practice. Predictors of prescribing were estimated using logistic regression in a matched patient cohort (1:1 by age, sex and calendar time).ResultsOver 8 million patient records were examined in 587 UK general practices. Practices varied considerably in their propensity to prescribe antibiotics and this variance increased over time. Change points in prescribing did not reflect updates to national guidelines. Prescribing levels within practices were not consistent for different infectious conditions. A history of antibiotic use significantly increased the risk of receiving a subsequent antibiotic (by 22%-48% for patients with three or more antibiotic prescriptions in the past 12 months), as did higher BMI, history of smoking and flu vaccinations. Other drivers for receiving an antibiotic varied considerably for each condition.ConclusionsLarge variability in antibiotic prescribing between practices and within practices was observed. Prescribing guidelines alone do not positively influence a change in prescribing, suggesting more targeted interventions are required to optimize antibiotic prescribing in the UK.
| S-EPMC6640319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAt a time of increased need and demand for general internists in Canada, the attractiveness of generalist careers (including general internal medicine, GIM) has been falling as evidenced by the low number of residents choosing this specialty. One hypothesis for the lack of interest in a generalist career is lack of comfort with the skills needed to practice after training, and the mismatch between the tertiary care, inpatient training environment and "real life". This project was designed to determine perceived effectiveness of training for 10 years of graduates of Canadian GIM programs to assist in the development of curriculum and objectives for general internists that will meet the needs of graduates and ultimately society.MethodsMailed survey designed to explore perceived importance of training for and preparation for various aspects of Canadian GIM practice. After extensive piloting of the survey, including a pilot survey of two universities to improve the questionnaire, all graduates of the 16 universities over the previous ten years were surveyed.ResultsGaps (difference between importance and preparation) were demonstrated in many of the CanMEDS 2000/2005 competencies. Medical problems of pregnancy, perioperative care, pain management, chronic care, ambulatory care and community GIM rotations were the medical expert areas with the largest gaps. Exposure to procedural skills was perceived to be lacking. Some procedural skills valued as important for current GIM trainees and performed frequently (example ambulatory ECG interpretation) had low preparation ratings by trainees. Other areas of perceived discrepancy between training and practice included: manager role (set up of an office), health advocate (counseling for prevention, for example smoking cessation), and professional (end of life issues, ethics).ConclusionGraduates of Canadian GIM training programs over the last ten years have identified perceived gaps between training and important areas for practice. They have identified competencies that should be emphasized in Canadian GIM programs. Ongoing review of graduate's perceptions of training programs as it applies to their current practice is important to ensure ongoing appropriateness of training programs. This information will be used to strengthen GIM training programs in Canada.
| S-EPMC1664564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Testing and prescribing vitamin B12 (also known as cobalamin) is increasing in Switzerland but substantial variation among general practitioners (GPs) with respect to testing has been noted. In this study, we aimed at exploring GPs' mindsets regarding vitamin B12 testing and prescribing. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey distributed by e-mail to Swiss GPs. The questionnaire explored mindsets related to testing and prescribing vitamin B12 in specific clinical situations, as well as testing and prescribing strategies. The questionnaire was sent to 876 GPs and 390 GPs responded (44.5%). The most controversial domains for testing and prescribing vitamin B12 were idiopathic fatigue (57.4% and 43.4% of GPs agreed, respectively) and depressive symptoms (53.0% and 35.4% of GPs agreed, respectively). There was substantial variation among GPs with regard to testing strategies (89.5% of GPS used a serum cobalamin test, 71.3% of GPS used holotranscobalamin, and 27.6% of GPs used homocysteine or methylmalonic acid). Intramuscular injection was the predominantly prescribed route of application (median of 87.5% of the prescriptions). In this study, we focus on discordant mindsets that can be specifically targeted by using educational interventions, and research questions that still need answering specifically about the effectiveness of vitamin B12 for idiopathic fatigue.
| S-EPMC8398177 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4632209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDespite widespread availability of evidence-based guidelines to inform rational use of medicines, considerable unwarranted variation exists in prescribing. A greater understanding of key determinants of contemporary prescribing in UK general practice could inform strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing. This study explored (1) current influences on prescribing in general practice and (2) the possibility that general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) may contribute to greater engagement with evidence-based prescribing.DesignSemistructured, telephone interviews and a focus group were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken.ParticipantsGeneral practice prescribers: general practitioners (GPs), PBPs, nurses.Key informants: individuals within the National Health Service (NHS) with responsibility for influencing, monitoring and measuring general practice prescribing.SettingGeneral practices and NHS organisations in England.ResultsInterviews with 17 prescribers (GPs (n=6), PBPs (n=6), nurses (n=5)) and 6 key informants, and one focus group with five key informants were undertaken between November 2018 and April 2019. Determinants operating at individual, practice and societal levels impacted prescribing and guideline use. Prescribers' professional backgrounds, for example, nursing, pharmacy, patient populations and patient pressure were perceived as substantial influences, as well as media portrayal and public perceptions of medicines.Prescribers identified practice-level determinants of prescribing, including practice culture and shared beliefs. Key informants tended to emphasise higher-level influences, including NHS policies, availability of support and advice from secondary care and generic challenges associated with medicines use, for example, multimorbidity.Participants expressed mixed views about the potential of PBPs to promote evidence-based prescribing in general practice.ConclusionPrescribing in UK general practice is influenced by multiple intersecting factors. Strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing should target modifiable influences at practice and individual levels. Customising strategies for medical and non-medical prescribers may maximise their effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7802664 | biostudies-literature