Dataset Information

Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing.

Methods

All 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT.

Results

The implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs' professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance (coherence). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process (cognitive participation) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP (collective action). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels (reflexive monitoring). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees.

Conclusion

NPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs' professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.

SUBMITTER: Hoj K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7792001 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.

Høj Kirsten K Mygind Anna A Bro Flemming F

Implementation science communications 20210107 1

<h4>Background</h4>Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on ...[more]

PMID: 33413692

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBenzodiazepines have been a common target for policy interventions to curtail inappropriate use, with mixed results. To reduce alprazolam misuse, in February 2017, Australia delisted the 2-mg tablet strength from public subsidy, eliminated refills, and reduced the pack size from 50 tablets to 10 tablets.ObjectiveTo describe changes in alprazolam dispensing, prescribing, and poisonings associated with the implementation of a new policy to reduce inappropriate prescription of alprazolam in Australia.Design, setting, and participantsThis interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study included data from a 10% sample of Australian people who received publicly subsidized dispensing claims and prescribing approvals for alprazolam from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, and all calls to a poison information service involving alprazolam from February 1, 2015, to October 31, 2018. Autoregressive error models were used to quantify changes over time and compare patterns of use before and after the intervention. Data analyses were conducted from November 2018 to May 2019.ExposureImplementation of the policy change on February 1, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresMonthly trends in alprazolam prescribing approvals and dispensings, quarterly trends in telephone calls involving alprazolam to a poison information service, and patterns of prescribing and dispensing before and after the intervention.ResultsFrom 2015 to 2018, there were 71?481 alprazolam dispensings to 6772 people. After the intervention, overall dispensing decreased by 51.2% (95% CI, 50.5%-51.9%) and prescribing approvals increased by 17.5% (95% CI, 13.0%-22.2%). Overall, the proportion of dispensing of packs of 51 to 100 tablets increased from 5776 of 24?282 dispensings (23.8%) to 4888 of 10?676 dispensings (45.8%) (risk difference [RD], 22.0% [95% CI, 19.4%-24.6%]) and dispensing of packs of more than 100 tablets increased from 1029 of 24?282 dispensings (4.2%) to 1774 of 10?676 dispensings (16.6%) (RD, 12.4% [95% CI, 10.6%-14.2%]). Among people receiving their first alprazolam prescription, initiation with packs of 10 tablets or fewer increased from 16 of 1127 people (1.4%) before the intervention to 139 of 589 people (23.6%) after the intervention (RD, 22.2% [95% CI, 18.7%-25.7%]). Alprazolam treatment initiation with packs of more than 50 tablets also increased from 63 of 1127 people (5.6%) before the intervention to 144 of 589 people (24.4%) after the intervention (RD, 18.9% [95% CI, 15.1%-22.6%]). During 1 year before the intervention, patients received a median (interquartile range [IQR]) total of 250 (50-600) tablets and median (IQR) total combined tablet strength of 188 (50-550) mg. During 1 year after the intervention, people were dispensed less alprazolam, with a median (IQR) total of 200 (50-500) tablets and median (IQR) total combined tablet strength of 120 (30-360) mg. There was little change in poisoning calls involving alprazolam.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that after the policy intervention, subsidized alprazolam use decreased, but the increase in prescribing approvals placed additional burden on prescribers. Even after the intervention, most people who were dispensed alprazolam were still receiving treatment contrary to best-practice recommendations. Furthermore, the poison information center data suggested that people were still being dispensed the 2-mg tablet strength, presumably as nonsubsidized (ie, private) prescriptions.

Project description:ImportanceTime is a valuable resource in primary care, and physicians and patients consistently raise concerns about inadequate time during visits. However, there is little evidence on whether shorter visits translate into lower-quality care.ObjectiveTo investigate variations in primary care visit length and quantify the association between visit length and potentially inappropriate prescribing decisions by primary care physicians.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from electronic health record systems in primary care offices across the US to analyze adult primary care visits occurring in calendar year 2017. Analysis was conducted from March 2022 through January 2023.Main outcomes and measuresRegression analyses quantified the association between patient visit characteristics and visit length (measured using time stamp data) and the association between visit length and potentially inappropriate prescribing decisions, including inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory tract infections, coprescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines for painful conditions, and prescriptions that were potentially inappropriate for older adults (based on the Beers criteria). All rates were estimated using physician fixed effects and were adjusted for patient and visit characteristics.ResultsThis study included 8 119 161 primary care visits by 4 360 445 patients (56.6% women) with 8091 primary care physicians; 7.7% of patients were Hispanic, 10.4% were non-Hispanic Black, 68.2% were non-Hispanic White, 5.5% were other race and ethnicity, and 8.3% had missing race and ethnicity. Longer visits were more complex (ie, more diagnoses recorded and/or more chronic conditions coded). After controlling for scheduled visit duration and measures of visit complexity, younger, publicly insured, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black patients had shorter visits. For each additional minute of visit length, the likelihood that a visit resulted in an inappropriate antibiotic prescription changed by -0.11 percentage points (95% CI, -0.14 to -0.09 percentage points) and the likelihood of opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing changed by -0.01 percentage points (95% CI, -0.01 to -0.009 percentage points). Visit length had a positive association with potentially inappropriate prescribing among older adults (0.004 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.003-0.006 percentage points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, shorter visit length was associated with a higher likelihood of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for patients with upper respiratory tract infections and coprescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines for patients with painful conditions. These findings suggest opportunities for additional research and operational improvements to visit scheduling and quality of prescribing decisions in primary care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) may contribute to opioid overdose. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between PIP and adverse events. DESIGN:Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Three million seventy-eight thousand thirty-four individuals age ≥ 18, without disseminated cancer, who received prescription opioids between 2011 and 2015. MAIN MEASURES:We defined PIP as (a) morphine equivalent dose ≥ 100 mg/day in ≥ 3 months; (b) overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions in ≥ 3 months; (c) ≥ 4 opioid prescribers in any quarter; (d) ≥ 4 opioid-dispensing pharmacies in any quarter; (e) cash purchase of prescription opioids on ≥ 3 occasions; and (f) receipt of opioids in 3 consecutive months without a documented pain diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify PIP practices associated with non-fatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality, controlling for covariates. KEY RESULTS:All six types of PIP were associated with higher adjusted hazard for all-cause mortality, four of six with non-fatal overdose, and five of six with fatal overdose. Lacking a documented pain diagnosis was associated with non-fatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.02-2.41), as was high-dose opioids (AHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.59-1.76). Co-prescription of benzodiazepines was associated with fatal overdose (AHR 4.23, 95% CI 3.85-4.65). High-dose opioids were associated with all-cause mortality (AHR 2.18, 95% CI 2.14-2.23), as was lacking a documented pain diagnosis (AHR 2.05, 95% CI 2.01-2.09). Compared to those who received opioids without PIP, the hazard for fatal opioid overdose with one, two, three, and ≥ four PIP subtypes were 4.24, 7.05, 10.28, and 12.99 (test of linear trend, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PIP was associated with higher hazard for all-cause mortality, fatal overdose, and non-fatal overdose. Our study implies the possibility of creating a risk score incorporating multiple PIP subtypes, which could be displayed to prescribers in real time.

Dataset Information

Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets