Dataset Information

How many medications do doctors in primary care use? An observational study of the DU90% indicator in primary care in England.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To apply the drug utilisation 90% (DU90%) indicator (the number of unique drugs which makes up 90% of a doctor's prescribing) to general practitioner (GP) practices prescribing in England to examine time trends, practice-level variation, and relationships with practice characteristics, prescribing costs and low-value prescribing.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Primary care in England, using publicly available prescribing data available from the National Health Service (NHS) digital platform for 2013-2017.

Participants

All general practices in England (n=7620).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The DU90% was calculated on an annual basis for each practice based on medication British National Formulary codes. Low-value prescribing was defined using NHS 2017 guidance (including lidocaine plasters, liothyronine, omega-3 supplements). Descriptive statistics were generated per year on time trends and practice-level variation in the DU90%. Multilevel linear regression was used to examine the practice characteristics (relating to staff, patients and deprivation of the practice area).

Results

Among 7620 practices, mean DU90% ranged from 130.0 to 131.0 across study years, and regarding variation between practices, there was a 1.4-fold difference between the lowest and highest 5% of practices. A range of medications were included in the DU90% of virtually all practices, including atorvastatin, levothyroxine, omeprazole, ramipril, amlodipine, simvastatin and aspirin. A higher volume of prescribing was associated with a lower DU90%, while having more patients, higher proportions of patients who are women or aged ≥45 years, higher number of GPs working in the practice and being in a more deprived area were associated with a higher DU90%. Practices in higher quintiles of DU90% had higher levels of low-priority prescribing and prescribing costs.

Conclusion

GP practices typically use 130 different medications in the bulk of their prescribing. Higher DU90% was associated with higher levels of low-priority prescribing and prescribing costs. Increasing use of personal formularies may enhance prescribing quality and reduce costs.

SUBMITTER: Chiedozie C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7929869 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTemporary doctors, known as locums, are a key component of the medical workforce in the NHS but evidence on differences in quality and safety between locum and permanent doctors is limited. We aimed to examine differences in the clinical practice, and prescribing safety for locum and permanent doctors working in primary care in England.MethodsWe accessed electronic health care records (EHRs) for 3.5 million patients from the CPRD GOLD database with linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2022. We used multi-level mixed effects logistic regression to compare consultations with locum and permanent GPs for several patient outcomes including general practice revisits; prescribing of antibiotics; strong opioids; hypnotics; A&E visits; emergency hospital admissions; admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions; test ordering; referrals; and prescribing safety indicators while controlling for patient and practice characteristics.ResultsConsultations with locum GPs were 22% more likely to involve a prescription for an antibiotic (OR = 1.22 (1.21 to 1.22)), 8% more likely to involve a prescription for a strong opioid (OR = 1.08 (1.06 to 1.09)), 4% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit on the same day (OR = 1.04 (1.01 to 1.08)) and 5% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit within 1 to 7 days (OR = 1.05 (1.02 to 1.08)). Consultations with a locum were 12% less likely to lead to a practice revisit within 7 days (OR = 0.88 (0.87 to 0.88)), 4% less likely to involve a prescription for a hypnotic (OR = 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98)), 15% less likely to involve a referral (OR = 0.85 (0.84 to 0.86)) and 19% less likely to involve a test (OR = 0.81 (0.80 to 0.82)). We found no evidence that emergency admissions, ACSC admissions and eight out of the eleven prescribing safety indicators were different if patients were seen by a locum or a permanent GP.ConclusionsDespite existing concerns, the clinical practice and performance of locum GPs did not appear to be systematically different from that of permanent GPs. The practice and performance of both locum and permanent GPs is likely shaped by the organisational setting and systems within which they work.

Project description:ObjectivesHealth system reforms in England are opening broad areas of clinical practice to new providers of care. As part of these reforms, new entrants--including private companies--have been allowed into the primary care market under 'alternative provider of medical services' contracting mechanisms since 2004. The characteristics and performance of general practices working under new alternative provider contracts are not well described. We sought to compare the quality of care provided by new entrant providers to that provided by the traditional model of general practice.DesignOpen cohort study of English general practices. We used linear regression in cross-sectional and time series analyses, adjusting for practice and population characteristics, to compare quality in practices using alternative provider contracts to traditional practices. We created regression models using practice fixed effects to estimate the impact of practices changing to the new contract type.SettingThe English National Health Service.ParticipantsAll general practices open from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013.Main outcome measuresSeventeen established quality indicators--covering clinical effectiveness, efficiency, access and patient experience.ResultsIn total, 4.1% (347 of 8300) of general practices in England were run by alternative contract providers. These practices tended to be smaller, and serve younger, more diverse and more deprived populations than traditional providers. Practices run by alternative providers performed worse than traditional providers on 15 of 17 indicators after adjusting for practice and population characteristics (p?<?0.01 for all). Switching to a new alternative provider contract did not result in improved performance.ConclusionsThe introduction of new alternative providers to deliver primary care services in England has not led to improvements in quality and may have resulted in worse care. Regulators should ensure that new entrants to clinical provider markets are performing to adequate standards and at least as well as traditional providers.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether better continuity of care is associated with increased prescribing of clinically relevant medication and improved medication adherence.SettingRandom sample of 300 000 patients aged 30+ in 2017 within 83 English general practitioner (GP) practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.DesignPatients were assigned to a randomly selected index date in 2017 on which medication use and continuity of care were determined. Adjusted associations between continuity of care and the prescribing and adherence of five cardiovascular medication groups were examined using logistic regression.ParticipantsContinuity of Care Index was calculated for 173 993 patients with 4+ GP consultations 2 years prior to their index date and divided into five categories: absence of continuity, below-average continuity, average, above-average continuity and perfect continuity.Main outcome measures(A) Prescription for statins (primary or secondary prevention separately), anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents and antihypertensives covering the patient's index date. (B) Adherence (>80%) estimated using medication possession ratio.ResultsThere was strong evidence (p<0.01) that prescription of all five cardiovascular medication groups increased with greater continuity of care. Patients with absence of continuity were less likely to be prescribed cardiovascular medications than patients with above-average continuity (statins primary prevention OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; statins secondary prevention 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.03; antiplatelets 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; antihypertensives 0.51, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.65). Furthermore, patients with perfect continuity were more likely to be prescribed cardiovascular medications than those with above-average continuity (statins primary prevention OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49; statins secondary prevention 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.71; antiplatelets 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; antihypertensives 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23). Continuity was generally not associated with medication adherence, except for adherence to statins for secondary prevention (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94 for average compared with above-average continuity).ConclusionBetter continuity of care is associated with improved prescribing of medication to patients at higher risk of cardiovascular disease but does not appear to be related to patient's medication adherence.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of a pilot study of an online consultation system in primary care. We describe who used the system, when and why, and the National Health Service costs associated with its use. DESIGN:15-month observational study. SETTING:Primary care practices in South West England. RESULTS:36 General practices covering 396 828 patients took part in the pilot. The online consultation website was viewed 35 981 times over the pilot period (mean 9.11 visits per 1000 patients per month). 7472 patients went on to complete an 'e-consultation' (mean 2.00 online consultations per 1000 patients per month). E-consultations were mainly performed on weekdays and during normal working hours. Patient records (n=485) were abstracted for eight practices and showed that women were more likely to use e-consultations than men (64.7% vs 35.3%) and users had a median age of 39 years (IQR 30-50). The most common reason for an e-consultation was an administrative request (eg, test results, letters and repeat prescriptions (22.5%)) followed by infections/immunological issues (14.4%). The majority of patients (65.2%) received a response within 2 days. The most common outcome was a face-to-face (38%) or telephone consultation (32%). The former were more often needed for patients consulting about new conditions (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.27, p=0.049). The average cost of a practice's response to an e-consultation was £36.28, primarily triage time and resulting face-to-face/telephone consultations needed. CONCLUSIONS:Use of e-consultations is very low, particularly at weekends. Unless this can be improved, any impact on staff workload and patient waiting times is likely to be negligible. It is possible that use of e-consultations increases primary care workload and costs. Online consultation systems could be developed to improve efficiency both for staff and patients. These findings have implications for software developers as well as primary care services and policy-makers who are considering investing in online consultation systems.