Dataset Information

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

What is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?

Methods

A 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, ? 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 limitations

49 927 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 adds

The 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 sharing

National 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.

SUBMITTER: Stocks SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4632209 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Stocks S Jill SJ Kontopantelis Evangelos E Akbarov Artur A Rodgers Sarah S Avery Anthony J AJ Ashcroft Darren M DM

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20151103

<h4>Study question</h4>What is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?<h4>Methods</h4>A 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 ...[more]

PMID: 26537416

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis real-world safety analysis was requested by the European Medicines Agency following approval of apremilast, an oral treatment for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare incidence rates of adverse events of special interest identified a priori, in patients receiving apremilast with those receiving other systemic treatments for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.MethodsThis 5-year cohort study was conducted in Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD between January 2015 and June 2020. Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were estimated for four matched cohorts: apremilast-exposed and three matched non-apremilast cohorts (oral only, injectable only, and oral and injectable psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis treatments).ResultsThe apremilast-exposed cohort included 341 patients and the three non-apremilast cohorts included 4981 patients. There were no incident cases of vasculitis, hematologic malignancy, non-melanoma skin malignancy, treated depression, treated anxiety, or suicidal behaviors in the apremilast-exposed cohort during the follow-up. Similar incidence rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events, tachyarrhythmias, and solid malignancies were recorded in the apremilast and non-apremilast cohorts. The incidence rate (95% confidence interval) per 1000 person-years of opportunistic and serious infections in the apremilast-exposed cohort (64 [40-102])) was similar to incidence rates in the oral (50 [42-60]) and oral and injectable non-apremilast cohorts (57 [47-69]), while the incidence rates were lower in the injectable treatment-only cohort (20 [10-41]). Limitations include small numbers of apremilast-exposed patients and potential exposure misclassification partly owing to missing information on biologic and other specialty treatment use.ConclusionsNo new apremilast safety signals were identified in this study. These results provide evidence that the long-term safety of apremilast in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in a real-world setting is comparable to that reported in clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundTime from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis (diagnostic interval) is an important, and modifiable, part of the patient's cancer pathway, and can be affected by various factors such as age, gender and type of presenting symptoms. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationships of diagnostic interval with these variables in 15 cancers diagnosed between 2007 and 2010 using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the UK.MethodsSymptom lists for each cancer were prepared from the literature and by consensus amongst the clinician researchers, which were then categorised into either NICE qualifying (NICE) or not (non-NICE) based on NICE Urgent Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer criteria. Multivariable linear regression models were fitted to examine the relationship between diagnostic interval (outcome) and the predictors: age, gender and symptom type.Results18,618 newly diagnosed cancer patients aged ≥40 who had a recorded symptom in the preceding year were included in the analysis. Mean diagnostic interval was greater for older patients in four disease sites (difference in days per 10 year increase in age; 95% CI): bladder (10.3; 5.5 to 15.1; P<0.001), kidney (11.0; 3.4 to 18.6; P=0.004), leukaemia (18.5; 8.8 to 28.1; P<0.001) and lung (10.1; 6.7 to 13.4; P<0.001). There was also evidence of longer diagnostic interval in older patients with colorectal cancer (P<0.001). However, we found that mean diagnostic interval was shorter with increasing age in two cancers: gastric (-5.9; -11.7 to -0.2; P=0.04) and pancreatic (-6.0; -11.2 to -0.7; P=0.03). Diagnostic interval was longer for females in six of the gender non-specific cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (12.2; 0.8 to 23.6; P=0.04), colorectal (10.4; 4.3 to 16.5; P=0.001), gastric (14.3; 1.1 to 27.6; P=0.03), head and neck (31.3; 6.2 to 56.5; P=0.02), lung (8.0; 1.2 to 14.9; P=0.02), and lymphoma (19.2; 3.8 to 34.7; P=0.01). Evidence of longer diagnostic interval was found for patients presenting with non-NICE symptoms in 10 of 15 cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (62.9; 48.7 to 77.2; P<0.001), breast (115.1; 105.9 to 124.3; P<0.001), cervical (60.3; 31.6 to 89.0; P<0.001), colorectal (25.8; 19.6 to 31.9; P<0.001), gastric (24.1; 3.4 to 44.8; P=0.02), kidney (22.1; 4.5 to 39.7; P=0.01), oesophageal (67.0; 42.1 to 92.0; P<0.001), pancreatic (48.6; 28.1 to 69.1; P<0.001), testicular (36.7; 17.0 to 56.4; P< 0.001), and endometrial (73.8; 60.3 to 87.3; P<0.001). Pooled analysis across all cancers demonstrated highly significant evidence of differences overall showing longer diagnostic intervals with increasing age (7.8 days; 6.4 to 9.1; P<0.001); for females (8.9 days; 5.5 to 12.2; P<0.001); and in non-NICE symptoms (27.7 days; 23.9 to 31.5; P<0.001).ConclusionsWe found age and gender-specific inequalities in time to diagnosis for some but not all cancer sites studied. Whilst these need further explanation, these findings can inform the development and evaluation of interventions intended to achieve timely diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes, such as to provide equity across all age and gender groupings.

Project description:BackgroundCancer survivors may be at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, but little is known about whether prescribing guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease are adequately implemented in these patients. We compared levels of statin initiation and cessation among cancer survivors compared to the general population to determine differences in uptake of pharmaceutical cardiovascular risk prevention measures in these groups.MethodsThe study population included individuals aged ?40 during 2005-13 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database. Within this population we identified cancer survivors who were alive and under follow-up at least 1 year after diagnosis, and controls with no cancer history. Follow-up time prior to cancer diagnosis was included in the control cohort. Using logistic regression, we compared these groups with respect to uptake of statins within 1 month of a first high recorded cardiovascular risk score. Then, we used Cox modelling to compare persistence on statin therapy (time to statin cessation) between cancer survivors and controls from the main study population who had initiated on a statin.ResultsAmong 4202 cancer survivors and 113,035 controls with a record indicating a high cardiovascular risk score, 23.0% and 23.5% respectively initiated a statin within 1 month (adjusted odds ratio 0.98 [91.8-1.05], p?=?0.626). Cancer survivors appeared more likely to discontinue statin treatment than controls (adjusted hazard ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.12], p?=?0.02). This greater risk of discontinuing was only evident after the first year of therapy (p-interaction <?0.001).InterpretationAlthough cardiovascular risk is thought to be higher in cancer survivors compared to the general population, cancer survivors were no more likely to receive statins, and marginally more likely to cease long-term therapy, than general population controls. There may be an opportunity to mitigate the suspected higher cardiovascular risk in the growing population of cancer survivors by improving uptake of lipid-lowering treatment and persistence on therapy.

Project description:IntroductionWarfarin has frequently been underused in older people for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) entered the UK market from 2008 and have been recommended as an alternative to warfarin. This study aimed to describe any changes in the prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) to people aged ?75 years in UK general practice before and after the introduction of DOACs, to examine differences in patient characteristics which may influence prescribers' decisions regarding anticoagulation, to evaluate the time people stay on OACs and switching between OACs.Methods and analysisA retrospective cohort study design will be used. Patients with a diagnosis of AF will be identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The study period will run from 1 January 2003 to 27 December 2017. Patients enter the cohort at the latest date of the start of the study period, first AF diagnosis, 75th birthday or a year from when they started to contribute research standard data. Follow-up continues until they leave the practice, death, the date the practice stops contributing research standard data or the end of the study period (27 December 2017). Exposure to OACs will be defined as ?1 prescription issued for an OAC of interest during the study period. Patients issued an OAC in the year preceding study entry will be defined as 'prevalent users'. Patients starting on an OAC during the study period will be defined as 'incident users'. Incidence and prevalence of OAC prescribing, patient demographics and characteristics will be described during three time periods: 2003-2007, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017. Persistence (defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of medication) with and switching between different OACs will be described.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this study was approved by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at conferences.Trial registration numberEUPAS29923.

Dataset Information

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Study question

Methods

Study answer and limitations

What this study adds

Funding, competing interests, data sharing

Publications

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets