Dataset Information

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland. DESIGN:Non-randomised pilot study. SETTING:Primary care in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS:Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles. INTERVENTION:A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6?months (10?hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education. OUTCOME MEASURES:Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ?65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6?weeks after medication review by the pharmacist. RESULTS:Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57?000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ?65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

SUBMITTER: Cardwell K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7322285 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

Cardwell Karen K Smith Susan M SM Clyne Barbara B McCullagh Laura L Wallace Emma E Kirke Ciara C Fahey Tom T Moriarty Frank F

BMJ open 20200628 6

<h4>Objective</h4>Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.<h4>Design</h4>Non-randomised pilot study.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care in Ireland.<h4>Participants</h4>Four general practices, ...[more]

PMID: 32595137

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be seen as failure to meet recommended targets for management of key risk factors including glycaemic control, blood pressure and lipids. Poor control of risk factors is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Failure to intensify medications for patients with poor control of T2DM when indicated is called clinical inertia and is one contributory factor to poor control of T2DM. We aimed to develop a theory and evidence-based complex intervention to improve appropriate prescribing and medication intensification in poorly controlled T2DM in Irish general practice.MethodsThe first stage of the Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions was utilised. To identify current evidence, we performed a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of interventions targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM in community settings. The Behaviour Change Wheel theoretical approach was used to identify suitable intervention functions. Workshops, simulation, collaborations with academic partners and observation of physicians were utilised to operationalise the intervention functions and design the elements of the complex intervention.ResultsOur systematic review highlighted that professional-based interventions, potentially through clinical decision support systems, could address poorly controlled T2DM. Appropriate intensification of anti-glycaemic and cardiovascular medications, by general practitioners (GPs), for adults with poorly controlled T2DM was identified as the key behaviour to address clinical inertia. Psychological capability was the key driver of the behaviour, which needed to change, suggesting five key intervention functions (education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring and incentivisation) and nine key behaviour change techniques, which were operationalised into a complex intervention. The intervention has three components: (a) a training program/academic detailing of target GPs, (b) a remote finder tool to help GPs identify patients with poor control of T2DM in their practice and (c) A web-based clinical decision support system.ConclusionsThis paper describes a multifaceted process including an exploration of current evidence and a thorough theoretical understanding of the predictors of the behaviour resulting in the design of a complex intervention to promote the implementation of evidence-based guidelines, through appropriate prescribing and medication intensification in poorly controlled T2DM.

Project description:Interventions: The ‘general practice-led intervention’ is a multi-component intervention identified in a synthesised evidence review of interventions effective at increasing Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening participation and co-designed with general practice staff. The co-design was completed in March 2023 with 38 General Practice Staff and from across Australia. Co-design participants discussed implementation barriers and enablers of intervention components with evidence-based effectiveness at increasing CRC screening. The co-design results were analyzed against implementation science frameworks and the barriers assessed against implementation barriers identified in the evidence review. The final intervention to be delivered to general practice healthcare providers will comprise of a combination of the following components: 1.Decision-aid tools adapted from existing source (CRISP tool) Anticipated completion time of 5 minutes per patient. 2.Reminder prompts activated within existing general practice software Medical Director 3. Integration of the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR) within practice software systems and use of a Cancer Screening Toolkit and clinical audits of patient data using an existing resource developed by the Cancer Institute NSW (Primary Care Cancer Control Quality Improvement Toolkit). Anticipated time by practice staff 1 hr per fortnight for 6-month duration. 4.Learning modules and digital resources to educate on guideline-appropriate screening pathways for GPs: - 2 x 1 hour online self-paced modules developed by GPEx with the learning outcomes: - Be aware why General Practice needs to endorse participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and be able to explain to patients the risks in not Primary outcome(s): Co-primary Implementation Effectiveness Outcome The co-primary implementation effectiveness outcome is guideline-appropriate CRC screening recommendations provided. The co-primary implementation effectiveness outcome will be assessed using a study specific data collection tool integrated into Clinical Information Systems used in General Practice to undertake audits of medical records. [ Co-primary Implementation Effectiveness Outcome will be measured mid-trial at 6-months duration since trial commencement and at post-trial, 12-months duration since trial commencement. ];Co-primary Clinical Effectiveness Outcome The co-primary clinical effectiveness outcome is guideline-appropriate CRC screening tests completed by practice patients (inc. NBCSP kits, GP-initiated kits & colonoscopies). The co-primary clinical effectiveness outcome will be assessed using Health Analytics software used in General Practice to undertake audits of medical records. [ Co-primary Clinical Effectiveness Outcome will be measured pre-trial and post-trial after 12 months since trial commencement. ] Study Design: Purpose: Prevention; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists' antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS AND FINDINGS:All 795 antibiotic prescribing NHS general dental practices in Scotland were included. Practices were randomised to the control (practices = 163; dentists = 567) or A&F intervention group (practices = 632; dentists = 1,999). A&F intervention practices were allocated to one of two A&F groups: (1) individualised graphical A&F comprising a line graph plotting an individual dentist's monthly antibiotic prescribing rate (practices = 316; dentists = 1,001); or (2) individualised graphical A&F plus a written behaviour change message synthesising and reiterating national guidance recommendations for dental antibiotic prescribing (practices = 316; dentists = 998). Intervention practices were also simultaneously randomised to receive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the graphical A&F plotting the monthly antibiotic prescribing rate of all dentists in the health board; and (ii) delivered at 0 and 6 mo or at 0, 6, and 9 mo, giving a total of eight intervention groups. The primary outcome, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antibiotic items dispensed per 100 NHS treatment claims over the 12 mo post-delivery of the baseline A&F. Primary outcome data was available for 152 control practices (dentists = 438) and 609 intervention practices (dentists = 1,550). At baseline, the number of antibiotic items prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims was 8.3 in the control group and 8.5 in the intervention group. At follow-up, antibiotic prescribing had decreased by 0.4 antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims in control practices and by 1.0 in intervention practices. This represents a significant reduction (-5.7%; 95% CI -10.2% to -1.1%; p = 0.01) in dentists' prescribing rate in the intervention group relative to the control group. Intervention subgroup analyses found a 6.1% reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists who had received the written behaviour change message relative to dentists who had not (95% CI -10.4% to -1.9%; p = 0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the prescribing rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI -8.6% to 0.1%; p = 0.06), nor between dentists who received A&F at 0 and 6 mo relative to those who received A&F at 0, 6, and 9 mo (0.02%; 95% CI -4.2% to 4.2%; p = 0.99). The key limitations relate to the use of routinely collected datasets which did not allow evaluation of any effects on inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS:A&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:The Danish health care sector is reorganising based on disease management programmes designed to secure integrated and high quality chronic care across hospitals, general practitioners and municipalities. The disease management programmes assign a central role to general practice; and in the Capital Region of Denmark a facilitator-based intervention was undertaken to support the implementation of the programmes in general practice. The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of this semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention.The study was a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention group was offered three one-hour visits by a facilitator. The intervention was semi-tailored to the perceived needs as defined by each general practice, and the practices could choose from a list of possible topics. The control group was a delayed intervention group. The primary outcome was change in the number of annual chronic disease check-ups. Secondary outcomes were: changes in the number of annual check-ups for type 2 diabetes (DM2) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); changes in the number of spirometry tests, changes in the use of ICPC diagnosis coding and patient stratification; sign-up for a software program for patient overview; and reduction in number of practices with few annual chronic disease check-ups.We randomised 189 general practices: 96 practices were allocated to the intervention group and 93 to the delayed intervention group. For the primary outcome, 94 and 89 practices were analysed. Almost every outcome improved from baseline to follow-up in both allocation groups. At follow-up there was no difference between allocation groups for the primary outcome (p = 0.1639). However, some secondary outcomes favoured the intervention: a higher reported use of ICPC diagnosis coding for DM2 and COPD (p = 0.0050, p = 0.0243 respectively), stratification for COPD (p = 0.0185) and a faster initial sign-up rate for the software program.The mixed results from this study indicate that a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention of relatively low intensity is unlikely to add substantially to the implementation of disease management programmes for DM2 and COPD in a context marked by important concurrent initiatives (including financial incentives and mandatory registry participation) aimed at moving all practices towards changes in chronic care.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01297075.

Project description:BackgroundResidents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification.MethodsMixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed.ResultsAcross the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload.ConclusionImplementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

Project description:BackgroundResearch literature consistently documents that scientifically based therapeutic recommendations are not always followed in the hospital or in the primary care setting. Currently, there is evidence that some general practitioners in Australia are not prescribing appropriately for patients diagnosed with 1) hypertension (HT) and 2) chronic heart failure (CHF). The objectives of this study were to improve general practitioner's drug treatment management of these patients through feedback on their own prescribing and small group discussions with peers and a trained group facilitator. The impact evaluation includes quantitative assessment of prescribing changes at 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after the intervention.MethodsA pragmatic multi site cluster RCT began recruiting practices in October 2009 to evaluate the effects of a multi-faceted quality improvement (QI) intervention on prescribing practice among Australian general practitioners (GP) in relation to patients with CHF and HT. General practices were recruited nationally through General Practice Networks across Australia. Participating practices were randomly allocated to one of three groups: two groups received the QI intervention (the prescribing indicator feedback reports and small group discussion) with each group undertaking the clinical topics (CHF and HT) in reverse order to the other. The third group was waitlisted to receive the intervention 6 months later and acted as a "control" for the other two groups.De-identified data on practice, doctor and patient characteristics and their treatment for CHF and HT are extracted at six-monthly intervals before and after the intervention. Post-test comparisons will be conducted between the intervention and control arms using intention to treat analysis and models that account for clustering of practices in a Network and clustering of patients within practices and GPs.DiscussionThis paper describes the study protocol for a project that will contribute to the development of acceptable and sustainable methods to promote QI activities within routine general practice, enhance prescribing practices and improve patient outcomes in the context of CHF and HT.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Trial # 320870.

Project description:BackgroundChanging demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.MethodsA multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.ResultsMedian number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).ConclusionThe pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

Publications

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets