Dataset Information

Development of a Theory-Informed Behavior Change Intervention to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing of Nephrotoxins and Renally Eliminated Drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Goals of managing patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) are mitigating disease progression and ensuring safety while providing supportive care because no effective treatment exists. One strategy recommended in guidelines to meet these goals is optimizing medication management. Unfortunately, guideline implementation appears to be lacking as observed by the frequent occurrence of medication errors and adverse drug events.

Objective

To address this performance gap in the care of hospitalized patients receiving nephrotoxins and renally eliminated drugs, we sought to provide a potential intervention based on theory-informed behavior change.

Methods

Formative research with a qualitative analysis identifying what needs to change in patient care was completed by obtaining clinician opinion and expert opinion and reviewing the published literature. Frontline providers, including 8 physicians, 4 pharmacists, and a multiprofessional group of authors, provided insight into possible barriers to appropriate prescribing. Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model and Theoretical Domain Framework were applied to characterize behavior change interventions and inform a potential implementation intervention for changing inappropriate prescribing behaviors.

Results

Lack of knowledge about appropriate drug management in patients at risk for adverse outcomes was provided as a major barrier. Other reported barriers included a lack of: (1) tools to assist with drug management, (2) motivation to make changes, (3) routinization, and (4) an accountable clinician.

Conclusions and relevance

Assigning a designated clinician to execute a stepwise, routine care process following the checklist provided is a recommended intervention to overcome barriers. The intended impact is behavior change that reduces inappropriate prescribing.

SUBMITTER: Kane-Gill SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8517035 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextMedical interns (interns) find prescribing challenging and many report lacking readiness when commencing work. Errors in prescribing puts patients' safety at risk. Yet error rates remain high, despite education, supervision and pharmacists' contributions. Feedback on prescribing may improve performance. Yet, work-based prescribing feedback practices focus on rectifying errors. We aimed to explore if prescribing can be improved using a theory-informed feedback intervention.MethodsIn this pre-post study, we designed and implemented a constructivist-theory informed prescribing feedback intervention, informed by Feedback-Mark 2 Theory. Interns commencing internal medicine terms in two Australian teaching hospitals were invited to engage in the feedback intervention. Their prescribing was evaluated by comparing errors per medication order of at least 30 orders per intern. Pre/baseline (weeks 1-3) were compared with post intervention (weeks 8-9). Interns' baseline prescribing audit findings were analysed and discussed at individualised feedback sessions. These sessions were with a clinical pharmacologist (Site 1) and a pharmacist educator (Site 2).ResultsEighty eight intern's prescribing over five 10-week terms was analysed from two hospitals. The frequency of prescribing errors significantly reduced at both sites after the intervention, across all five terms (p < 0.001).There were initially 1598 errors in 2750 orders (median [IQR] 0.48 [0.35-0.67] errors per order) and after the intervention 1113 errors in 2694 orders (median [IQR] 0.30 [0.17-0.50] errors per order).ConclusionOur findings suggest interns' prescribing practices may improve as a result of constructivist -theory learner centred, informed feedback with an agreed plan. This novel intervention, contributed, to a reduction in interns' prescribing errors. This study suggests new strategies for improving prescribing safety should include the design and implementation of theory-informed feedback interventions.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial.MethodsPrimary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined.ResultsWe examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54-0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.995).ConclusionsWe observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960 .

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:BackgroundMultimorbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people. Assessment tools or lists of criteria aimed at supporting prescription decisions for older people exist, but have often been based on expert opinion with insufficient consideration of the evidence available. The present paper describes the methods we are using to systematically review the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the most commonly prescribed drugs for older people in the management of their chronic medical conditions and to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescriptions for incorporation into the Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) tool developed by the PRIMA-eDS European project.MethodsWe selected the 20 most relevant drugs/drug classes in terms of prescription volumes and risk of hospitalisation for older people and the most relevant indications for the most common chronic conditions among older people and a total of 35 distinct drug-indication pairs were chosen. Based on clinical considerations we collapsed some indications together, reducing the 35 pairs to a final total of 22 separate systematic reviews (SR). A common methodology will be used for each individual SR, based on the methodological manuals of the Cochrane collaboration and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Our search strategy will have a staged approach where we initially search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but if relevant reviews are not found, then search for individual studies (controlled intervention and observational studies). Our pilot work and initial scoping of the literature suggested that very few, relevant individual trials or existing systematic reviews have researched or reported exclusively on older people. Therefore, sufficient data might not be available to perform meta-analysis but we will provide a narrative synthesis describing characteristics and findings of included studies. The collected evidence will be used to construct recommendations on when not to use or to discontinue a drug, or when to reduce its dose. Recommendations will be developed in team meetings using the GRADE methodology to reflect the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence. Recommendations will be built into the CMR tool.DiscussionThis protocol has been prepared for a series of systematic reviews which will provide research-based evidence to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older people as part of the CMR tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.

Project description:BackgroundUnnecessary antibiotic use is associated with adverse side effects and rising rates of resistance at the individual and population level. This study used a theory-informed approach to identify potentially modifiable determinants of antibiotic prescribing for patients presenting to primary care with upper respiratory tract infection symptoms.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada who were identified as medium- or high-volume antibiotic prescribers (high volume defined as top 20th percentile versus "medium" defined as 40th to 60th percentile). The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Each interview was coded by two research team members. Sampling and analysis continued until thematic saturation was achieved.ResultsTwenty family physicians were interviewed. Physicians felt that many decisions about prescribing for upper respiratory tract infection symptoms were straightforward (i.e., black and white). However, intention to avoid prescribing in cases where an antibiotic was not indicated clinically did not always align with the provider action or expectation of the patient. Clinical decisions were influenced by the Theoretical Domain Framework domains that were both internal to the physician (Knowledge, Skills, Social/Professional Role, and Belief about Capabilities) and external to the physician (Social Influence, Belief about Consequences, Reinforcement, Emotions, and Behavioural Regulation). The Environmental Context and Resources played a key role. Physicians reported significant differences in their approach to antibiotic prescribing within episodic (walk-in) or continuity of care settings, as the presence (or not) of longitudinal physician-patient relationships seemed to moderate the role of these factors on the decision-making process in cases of uncertainty.ConclusionsAntibiotic prescribing in primary care is a complex decision-making process in which context may outweigh biology during encounters featuring clinical uncertainty. Differential skill in handling uncertainty and tactics used to operationalize guideline recommendations in the real world seems to contribute to observed variation in prescribing patterns, as much or more than differences in knowledge of best practices.

Project description:ObjectivePolypharmacy occurs in approximately 30% of older adults aged 65 years or more, particularly among those with multimorbidity. With polypharmacy, there is an associated risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). The aims of this scoping review were to (1) identify the intervention elements that have been adopted to reduce PIP in the outpatient setting and (2) determine the behaviour change wheel (BCW) intervention functions performed by each of the identified intervention elements.DesignScoping review DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, grey literature sources, six key geriatrics journals and the reference lists of review papers.Study selectionAll studies reporting an intervention or strategy that addressed PIP in the older adult population (age ≥65) with multimorbidity in the outpatient setting and in which the primary prescriber is the physician.Data extractionData extracted from the included studies can be broadly categorised into (1) publication details, (2) intervention details and (3) results. This was followed by data synthesis and analysis based on the BCW framework.ResultsOf 8195 studies yielded, 80 studies were included in the final analysis and 14 intervention elements were identified. An average of two to three elements were adopted in each intervention. The three most frequently adopted intervention elements were medication review (70%), training (26.3%) and tool/instrument(s) (22.5%). Among medication reviews, 70% involved pharmacists. The 14 intervention elements were mapped onto five intervention functions: 'education', 'persuasion', 'training', 'environmental restructuring' and 'enablement'.ConclusionPIP is a multifaceted problem that involves multiple stakeholders. As such, interventions that address PIP require multiple elements to target the behaviour of the various stakeholders. The intervention elements and their corresponding functions identified in this scoping review will serve to inform the design of complex interventions that aim to reduce PIP.