Dataset Information

Drug prescription goals in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Care goals are often implicit, although their identification is a key element of any prescription process. This study aimed to describe the clinical goals of drug prescriptions in general practice, their determinants and the agreement between physicians and patients. METHODS:This was a cross-sectional study conducted by 11 resident trainees acting as observers in 23 general practices. The residents recorded the indication and main physician's goal for all drugs prescribed during five consultation days in each practice in December 2015, and the main patient's goal for a sub-sample of consultations. We used an eight-category generic classification of prescription goals, including three specific (mortality, morbidity and cure), three non-specific (symptoms, quality of life, functioning) and two non-specified (other goal, no goal) categories. Analyses were based on a multivariable, multilevel model and on the kappa statistic applied to the sub-sample of consultations. RESULTS:The sample encompassed 2141 consultations and 5036 drugs. The main physicians' goal of drug prescriptions was to relieve symptoms (43.3%). The other goals were to decrease the risk of morbidity (22.4%), to cure disease (11.7%), to improve quality of life (10.6%), to decrease the risk of mortality (8.5%) and to improve functioning (1.8%). The choice of a specific goal was more frequent in patients with the following characteristics: over 50 (OR [1.09;1.15]), of male gender (OR [1.09;1.39]), with full financial coverage for a long-term condition (OR [1.47;1.97]), known by the physician (OR [1.19;2.23]), or with a somatic health problem (OR [2.56;4.17]). Cohen's kappa for drug prescription goals between the patients and the physicians was 0.26 (0.23-0.30). CONCLUSIONS:Physicians' goals are poorly shared with patients. It remains to be assessed whether it is possible to collect and discuss information on prescription goals on a daily basis.

SUBMITTER: Bernard L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6941394 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug prescription goals in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Bernard Louis L Ecochard René R Gueyffier François F Letrilliart Laurent L

BMC health services research 20200102 1

<h4>Background</h4>Care goals are often implicit, although their identification is a key element of any prescription process. This study aimed to describe the clinical goals of drug prescriptions in general practice, their determinants and the agreement between physicians and patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cross-sectional study conducted by 11 resident trainees acting as observers in 23 general practices. The residents recorded the indication and main physician's goal for all drugs prescrib ...[more]

PMID: 31898496

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One of several strategies developed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in situations where the indication is not clear is delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP), defined as an antibiotic prescription issued for the patient to take only in case of feeling worse or not feeling better several days after the visit. We conducted a survey to identify DAP use in Spanish primary care settings. METHODS:We surveyed 23 healthcare centers located in 4 autonomous regions where a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on DAP was underway. The primary variable was use of DAP. Categorical and quantitative variables were analyzed by means of the chi-squared test and non-parametric tests, respectively. RESULTS:The survey was sent to 375 healthcare professionals, 215 of whom responded (57.3% response rate), with 46% of these respondents declaring that they had used DAP in routine practice before the RCT started (66.6% afterwards), mostly (91.5%) for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), followed by urinary infections (45.1%). Regarding DAP use for RTIs, the most frequent conditions were pharyngotonsillitis (88.7%), acute bronchitis (62.7%), mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (59.9%), sinusitis (51.4%), and acute otitis media (45.1%). Most respondents considered that DAP reduced emergency visits (85.4%), scheduled visits (79%) and inappropriate antibiotic use (73.7%) and most also perceived patients to be generally satisfied with the DAP approach (75.6%). Having participated or not in the DAP RCT (74.1% versus 46.2%; p < 0.001), having previously used or not used DAP (86.8% versus 44.2%; p < 0.001), and being a physician versus being a nurse (81.8% versus 18.2%; p < 0.001) were factors that reflected significantly higher rates of DAP use. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of primary healthcare professionals in Spain do not use DAP. Those who use DAP believe that it reduces primary care visits and inappropriate antibiotic use, while maintaining patient satisfaction. Given the limited use of DAP in our setting, and given that its use is mainly limited to RTIs, DAP has considerable potential in terms of its implementation in routine practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In view of rapidly increasing prescription costs, case-mix adjustment should be considered for effective control of costs. We have estimated the variability in pharmacy costs explained by ACG in centers using patient electronic records, profiled centers and physicians and analyzed the correlation between cost and quality of prescription. METHODS: We analyzed 65,630 patient records attending five primary care centers in Spain during 2005. Variables explored were age, gender, registered diagnosed episodes of care during 2005, total cost of prescriptions, physician and center. One ACG was assigned to each patient with ACG case-mix software version 7.1. In a two-part model, logistic regression was used to explain the incurrence of drug expenditure at the first stage and a linear mixed model that considered the multilevel structure of data modeled the cost, conditional upon incurring any expense. Risk and efficiency indexes in pharmacy cost adjusted for ACG were obtained for centers and physicians. Spearman rank correlation between physician expenditure, adjusted for ACG, and a prescription quality index was also obtained. Pediatric and adult data were analyzed separately. RESULTS: No prescription was recorded for 13% of adults and 39.6% of children. The proportion of variance of the incurrence of expenditure explained by ACGs was 0.29 in adults and 0.21 in children. For adults with prescriptions, the variance of cost explained by ACGs was 35.4%, by physician-center was 1.8% and age 10.5% (residual 52.3%). For children, ACGs explained 22.4% of cost and physician-center 10.9% (residual 66.7%). Center efficiency index for adults ranged 0.58 to 1.22 and for children 0.32 to 2.36. Spearman correlation between expenditure and prescription quality index was -0.36 in family physicians (p = 0.019, N = 41) and -0.52 in pediatricians (p = 0.08, N = 12). CONCLUSION: In our setting, ACG is the variable studied that explains more variability in pharmacy cost in adults compared to physician and center. In children there is greater variability among physicians and centers not related to case-mix. In our sites, ACG is useful to profile physicians and centers using electronic records in real practical conditions. Physicians with lower pharmaceutical expenditure have higher scores for a prescription quality index.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between a recorded procedure code for a medication review and adequate drug treatment management, and to explore factors associated with this code.Design and settingCross-sectional study; two primary health care centres, in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.SubjectsA total of 302 consecutive patients (≥65 years old, 59% female; median number of drugs: six) requiring a non-urgent consultation with a physician in October-November 2017.Main outcome measureAdequate drug treatment management (treatment that did not require any further action), determined in consensus by two specialists in family medicine blinded to the medication review code.ResultsAdequate drug treatment management was, overall, less common in those with a recorded medication review over the last year: 63% versus 73% (p = 0.047). This negative association was evident among patients aged 65-74 years: 49% versus 74% (p = 0.003), but absent in those ≥75 years old: 67% versus 70% (p = 0.77). Recommendations from consensus included the search for additional information to be able to make a decision regarding initiation or withdrawal of a drug (n = 53), withdrawal of a drug (n = 41), or ordering a laboratory test (n = 25). Factors associated with a recorded procedure code included age above the remuneration limit of 75 years (odds ratio: 9.8; 95% confidence interval 5.0-19), type 2 diabetes (3.0 (1.5-6.2)), hypertension (2.4 (1.2-4.8)), and depression (2.5 (1.02-6.0)).ConclusionsThe presence of a recorded medication review was not positively associated with adequate drug treatment management but was associated with the age limit for remuneration, and some chronic diseases.Key pointsTo improve drug treatment in older people in primary care, a remuneration system linked to recorded medication reviews has been introduced.In this study, fewer patients with than without a recorded medication review (63% versus 73%) had adequate drug treatment management.A recorded medication review was ten times more common in those ≥75 years, that is, the age limit for remuneration.Recorded codes for medication reviews were also common in those with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and depression.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine experiences and attitudes toward care offered by chiropractors and prescription drug therapy offered by medical physicians for patients who have back pain.MethodsA cross-sectional survey measured patients with back pain (n = 150) seeking care within an academic primary care setting. A survey assessed patient experiences, beliefs, and attitudes regarding chiropractic care and prescription drug therapy. Two samples of patients in the New Hampshire region included 75 patients treated by a doctor of chiropractic (DC) and 75 treated by a medical primary care physician (PCP). The 30-item survey was sent to existing and new patients between February 2019 and January 2020. Between-group comparisons were examined to test rates of reporting and to determine the mean difference in the total number of office visits between the 2 samples.ResultsPatients treated by both DCs and PCPs reported high overall satisfaction with chiropractic care received for low back pain with no significant differences between groups. The majority in both groups reported that seeing a DC for back pain made sense to them (95% of patients treated by a DC and 75% of patients treated by a PCP) whereas the minority reported that taking prescription drugs for back pain made sense (25% of patients treated by a DC and 41% of patients treated by a PCP). There was no statistical difference between groups when patients were asked if seeing a chiropractor changed their beliefs or behaviors about taking pain medication. Significant differences were found between groups for agreement that chiropractic care would be a suitable treatment for back pain (79% of patients treated by a DC and 45% of patients treated by a PCP). There were 7% of patients treated by PCP and 23% of the patients treated by DC who agreed that a DC would be the first health care provider they would like to see for their general health needs.ConclusionsIn this sample of patients, patient satisfaction regarding chiropractic care received for back pain was high. There were differences between patient groups about preferences for treatment for back pain. Our results indicate that patients reported that seeing a DC for back pain did not change their beliefs or behaviors regarding prescription drug therapy provided by their medical PCP.

Project description:Introduction: Drug-related problems (DRPs) refer to events or circumstances involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interfere with desired health outcomes. DRPs might be severe for children with chronic diseases managed at primary health care institutions, but the relevant research is scarce. Objective: In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to explore the prevalence, types, causes, and influencing factors of DRPs in children with chronic diseases in a Chinese primary health care institution. Methods: We recruited children with chronic diseases who visited the pediatric outpatient department in a primary health care institution from July 1 to 12 October 2021. Clinical pharmacists identified DRPs through medication therapy reviews, classified the types and causes of DRPs, and distinguished the manifested DRPs that affected the outcome and potential DRPs that were going to affect the outcome. Results: A total of 188 children with chronic diseases was included, and 584 DRPs were identified in 89.89% of participants. The most common type of DRPs was “treatment effectiveness” (a manifested problem or potential problem with the effect of the pharmacotherapy; 83.56%), of which 67.29% were potential DRPs. The second common type was “treatment safety” (patient suffers or could suffer from an adverse drug event; 14.21%), of which 89.16% were potential DRPs. The most common cause of DRPs was related to the process of use (42.24%), such as “patient uses/takes less drug than prescribed or does not take the drug at all,” “patient stores drug inappropriately,” and “patient administers/uses the drug in a wrong way.” The second common cause was related to the process of dispensing (29.83%), such as “necessary information not provided or incorrect advice provided” and “prescribed drug is not available.” The third common cause was related to the process of prescribing (26.21%), such as “drug dose is too low” and “no or incomplete drug treatment despite an existing indication.” The number of combined medications was an influencing factor for the frequency of DRPs (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This cross-sectional study showed that the current situation regarding DRPs among children with chronic diseases managed in the primary health care institution was serious. The types of DRPs were mainly related to treatment effectiveness, and improper usage of medications was one of the main causes of DRPs. The number of combined drugs was the influencing factor for the frequency of DRPs. In the future, pharmacists should consider formulating pharmaceutical intervention strategies for this specific group according to the characteristics of DRPs.

Dataset Information

Drug prescription goals in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Drug prescription goals in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets