Dataset Information

Use of prescribing safety quality improvement reports in UK general practices: a qualitative assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality improvement (QI) initiatives are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and reduce prescribing errors. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) QI initiative uses routinely collected electronic primary care data to provide bespoke practice-level reports on prescribing safety. The aim of this study was to explore how the QI reports were used, barriers and facilitators to use, long-term culture change and perceived impact on patient care and practices systems as a result of receiving the reports.

Methods

A qualitative study using purposive sampling of practices contributing to the CPRD, semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. We interviewed general practitioners, pharmacists, practice managers and research nurses.

Results

We conducted 18 interviews, and organised themes summarising the use of QI reports in practice: receiving the report, facilitators and barriers to acting upon the reports, acting upon the report, and how the reports contribute to a quality culture. Effective dissemination of reports, and a positive attitude to audit and the perceived relevance of the clinical topic facilitated use. Lack of time and failure to see or act upon the reports meant they were not used. Factors influencing use of the reports included the structure of the report, ease of identifying cases, and perceptions about coding accuracy. GPs and pharmacists used the reports to conduct case reviews and directly contact patients to discuss unsafe prescribing and patient medication preferences. Finally, the reports contributed to the development of a quality culture within practices through promoting audit activity and acting as a reminder of good prescribing behaviours, promoting future patient safety initiatives, contributing to continuing professional development and improving local networks.

Conclusions

This study found the reports facilitated individual case review leading to an enhanced sense of quality culture in practices where they were utilised. Our findings demonstrate that the reports were generally considered useful and have been used to support patient safety and clinical practice in specific cases.

SUBMITTER: Khan NF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077765 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite widespread availability of evidence-based guidelines to inform rational use of medicines, considerable unwarranted variation exists in prescribing. A greater understanding of key determinants of contemporary prescribing in UK general practice could inform strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing. This study explored (1) current influences on prescribing in general practice and (2) the possibility that general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) may contribute to greater engagement with evidence-based prescribing.DesignSemistructured, telephone interviews and a focus group were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken.ParticipantsGeneral practice prescribers: general practitioners (GPs), PBPs, nurses.Key informants: individuals within the National Health Service (NHS) with responsibility for influencing, monitoring and measuring general practice prescribing.SettingGeneral practices and NHS organisations in England.ResultsInterviews with 17 prescribers (GPs (n=6), PBPs (n=6), nurses (n=5)) and 6 key informants, and one focus group with five key informants were undertaken between November 2018 and April 2019. Determinants operating at individual, practice and societal levels impacted prescribing and guideline use. Prescribers' professional backgrounds, for example, nursing, pharmacy, patient populations and patient pressure were perceived as substantial influences, as well as media portrayal and public perceptions of medicines.Prescribers identified practice-level determinants of prescribing, including practice culture and shared beliefs. Key informants tended to emphasise higher-level influences, including NHS policies, availability of support and advice from secondary care and generic challenges associated with medicines use, for example, multimorbidity.Participants expressed mixed views about the potential of PBPs to promote evidence-based prescribing in general practice.ConclusionPrescribing in UK general practice is influenced by multiple intersecting factors. Strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing should target modifiable influences at practice and individual levels. Customising strategies for medical and non-medical prescribers may maximise their effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundOpioids are prescribed in excess after surgery. We leveraged our continuous quality improvement infrastructure to implement opioid prescribing guidelines and subsequently evaluate changes in postoperative opioid prescribing, consumption and patient satisfaction/pain in a statewide regional health system.MethodsWe collected data regarding postoperative prescription size, opioid consumption and patient-reported outcomes from February 2017 to May 2019, from a 70-hospital surgical collaborative. Three iterations of prescribing guidelines were released. An interrupted time series analysis before and after each guideline release was performed. Linear regression was used to identify trends in consumption and patient-reported outcomes over time.ResultsWe included 36 022 patients from 69 hospitals who underwent one of nine procedures in the guidelines, of which 15 174 (37.3%) had complete patient-reported outcomes data following surgery. Before the intervention, prescription size was decreasing over time (slope: -0.7 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone/month, 95% CI -1.0 to -0.5 tablets, p<0.001). After the first guideline release, prescription size declined by -1.4 tablets/month (95% CI -1.8 to -1.0 tablets, p<0.001). The difference between these slopes was significant (p=0.006). The second guideline release resulted in a relative increase in slope (-0.3 tablets/month, 95% CI -0.1 to -0.6, p<0.001). The third guideline release resulted in no change (p=0.563 for the intervention). Overall, mean (SD) prescription size decreased from 25 (17) tablets of 5 mg oxycodone to 12 (8) tablets. Opioid consumption also decreased from 11 (16) to 5 (7) tablets (p<0.001), while satisfaction and postoperative pain remained unchanged.ConclusionsThe use of procedure-specific prescribing guidelines reduced statewide postoperative opioid prescribing by 50% while providing satisfactory pain care. These results demonstrate meaningful impact on opioid prescribing using evidence-based best practices and serve as an example of successful utilisation of a regional health collaborative for quality improvement.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA 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, β 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 limitations49 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 addsThe 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 sharingNational 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.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies of dental antibiotic prescribing show that overprescribing is a worldwide occurrence. The aim of this study was to assess prescribing practices of general dentists in Australia for antibiotics, analgesics and anxiolytics and to determine the extent to which prescribing is in accordance with current guidelines.MethodsA structured questionnaire was sent to 1468 dentists in Victoria and Queensland in July-August 2018. The questionnaire covered demographics, clinical conditions where dentists prescribe antibiotics, non-clinical factors which influence prescribing, and medicines for anxiolysis and pain relief. Responses were scored using a system based on the current Australian therapeutic guidelines. Logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of independent variables on inappropriate prescribing.ResultsThree hundred eighty-two responses were received. Overall, 55% of overprescribing of antibiotics was detected, with a range of 13-88% on a routine or occasional basis depending on the scenario. Between 16 and 27% of respondents inappropriately preferenced analgesics over anti-inflammatories for dental pain; 46% of those who prescribed anxiolytic medicines did so inappropriately, with varying regimens and choices outside the guidelines. Years of practice was the main demographic factor influencing prescribing, with recent graduates (0-5 years) generally scoring better than their colleagues for antibiotic prescribing (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFuture interventions could be directed towards the appropriate role and use of antibiotics, shortfalls in knowledge and appropriate choices of medicines for pain relief and anxiolysis. Given that the most overprescribing occurred for localised swellings (88%), this area could be focused on in continuing education as well as ensuring it is addressed in undergraduate teaching. Continuing education on the appropriate use of medicines can be targeted at more experienced dentists as well as patients, especially those who expect antibiotics instead of treatment.Trial registrationUniversity of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee; ID: 1750768.1 .