Dataset Information

Medicines prescribing for homeless persons: analysis of prescription data from specialist homelessness general practices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Specialist homelessness practices remain the main primary care access point for many persons experiencing homelessness. Prescribing practices are poorly understood in this population.

Objective

This study aims to investigate prescribing of medicines to homeless persons who present to specialist homelessness primary care practices and compares the data with the general population.

Setting

Analyses of publicly available prescribing and demographics data pertaining to primary care in England.

Methods

Prescribing data from 15 specialist homelessness practices in England were extracted for the period 04/2019-03/2020 and compared with data from (a) general populations, (b) the most deprived populations, and (c) the least deprived populations in England.

Main outcome measure

Prescribing rates, measured as the number of items/1000 population in key disease areas.

Results

Data corresponding to 20,572 homeless persons was included. Marked disparity were observed in regards to prescribing rates of drugs for Central Nervous System disorders. For example, prescribing rates were 83-fold (mean (SD) 1296.7(1447.6) vs. 15.7(9.2) p = 0.033) items), and 12-fold (p = 0.018) higher amongst homeless populations for opioid dependence and psychosis disorders respectively compared to the general populations. Differences with populations in the least deprived populations were even higher. Prescribing medicines for other long-term conditions other than mental health and substance misuse was lower in the homeless than in the general population.

Conclusions

Most of the prescribing activities in the homeless population relate to mental health conditions and substance misuse. It is possible that other long-term conditions that overlap with homelessness are under-diagnosed and under-managed. Wide variations in data across practices needs investigation.

SUBMITTER: Khan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9126241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 .

Project description:BackgroundQuality 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:National competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs' awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines. METHODS:Web-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Current NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA's website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA's website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain). CONCLUSIONS:NCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.

Project description:IntroductionFoot problems are common among homeless persons, but are often overlooked. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarize what is known about foot conditions and associated interventions among homeless persons.MethodsA literature search was conducted on MEDLINE (1966-2016), EMBASE (1947-2016), and CINAHL (1982-2016) and complemented by manual searches of reference lists. Articles that described foot conditions in homeless persons or associated interventions were included. Data were independently extracted on: general study characteristics; participants; foot assessment methods; foot conditions and associated interventions; study findings; quality score assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.ResultsOf 333 articles screened, 17 articles met criteria and were included in the study. Prevalence of any foot problem ranged from 9% to 65% across study populations. Common foot-related concerns were corns and calluses, nail pathologies, and infections. Foot pathologies related to chronic diseases such as diabetes were identified. Compared to housed individuals across studies, homeless individuals were more likely to have foot problems including tinea pedis, foot pain, functional limitations with walking, and improperly-fitting shoes.DiscussionFoot conditions were highly prevalent among homeless individuals with up to two thirds reporting a foot health concern, approximately one quarter of individuals visiting a health professional, and one fifth of individuals requiring further follow-up due to the severity of their condition. Homeless individuals often had inadequate foot hygiene practices and improperly-fitting shoes. These findings have service provision and public health implications, highlighting the need for evidence-based interventions to improve foot health in this population. An effective interventional approach could include optimization of foot hygiene and footwear, provision of comprehensive medical treatment, and addressing social factors that lead to increased risk of foot problems. Targeted efforts to screen for and treat foot problems could result in improved health and social outcomes for homeless individuals.