Indicators for preventable drug related morbidity: application in primary care

GPs' perspectives on prescribing for older people in primary care: a qualitative study

AIMS

The aim of this study was firstly to reveal the determinants of GP prescribing behaviour for older adults in primary care and secondly to elicit GPs' views on the potential role for broad intervention strategies involving pharmacists and/or information technology systems in general practice.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of GPs. Three multidisciplinary researchers independently coded the interview data using a framework approach. Emerging themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a tool used to apply behaviour change theories.

RESULTS

Sixteen GPs participated in the study. The following domains in the TDF were identified as being important determinants of GP prescribing behaviour: 'Knowledge', 'Skills', 'Reinforcement', 'Memory Attention and Decision Process', 'Environmental Context and Resources', 'Social Influences', 'Social/Professional Role and Identity'. Participants reported that the challenges associated with prescribing for an increasingly older population will require them to become more knowledgeable in pharmacology and drug interactions and they called for extra training in these topics. GPs viewed strategies such as academic detailing sessions delivered by pharmacists or information technology systems as having a positive role to play in optimizing prescribing.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the complexities of behavioural determinants of prescribing for older people in primary care and the need for additional supports to optimize prescribing for this growing cohort of patients. Interventions that incorporate, but are not limited to interprofessional collaboration with pharmacists and information technology systems, were identified by GPs as being potentially useful for improving prescribing behaviour, and therefore require further exploration.

Assessing prescribing of NSAIDs, antiplatelets, and anticoagulants in Canadian family medicine using chart review

Background Drug-related problems have been identified as a major contributor to emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death. The most commonly implicated medications are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelets, and anticoagulants. Considering a significant proportion of these harms are preventable, indicators to identify risky prescribing before they lead to harm have been developed. Objective To examine the prevalence and patterns of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in a primary care population who are using high-risk medications. Setting This study was performed within two multi-disciplinary family medicine teaching clinics in Winnipeg, Canada. Method A cross-sectional electronic/paper chart audit was conducted within two multi-disciplinary family medicine teaching clinics to evaluate the prevalence of 13 evidence-based high-risk prescriptions. Patients were included if they were prescribed an oral NSAID, antiplatelet, or an anticoagulant within the 12 month period between June 2012 and June 2013. Main outcome measure The proportion of PIPs associated with an increased bleeding risk for NSAIDs, antiplatelets, and anticoagulants. Results Of the 567 patients included in the review, 198 (35 %) patients had received at least 1 PIP in the past year. The most common PIP was the use of an oral NSAID with one or more GI risk factors without adequate gastro-protection. Only 34 (6 %) of these patients received a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Although not statistically significant, patients who received a medication review had fewer inappropriate prescriptions (27 % with review, 35 % without). Conclusion Over one-third of the patients who were using high-risk medications were using them potentially inappropriately. Although pharmacists have been shown to reduce the amount of inappropriate prescribing, very few patients using these medications were referred to the pharmacist for a full medication review. These data suggest that there is opportunity for the identification and assessment of these patients when prescribing or dispensing these high-risk medications.

Primary Care Medication Safety Surveillance with Integrated Primary and Secondary Care Electronic Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

The extent of preventable medication-related hospital admissions and medication-related issues in primary care is significant enough to justify developing decision support systems for medication safety surveillance. The prerequisite for such systems is defining a relevant set of medication safety-related indicators and understanding the influence of both patient and general practice characteristics on medication prescribing and monitoring.

Objective

The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of linked primary and secondary care electronic health record data for surveillance of medication safety, examining not only prescribing but also monitoring, and associations with patient- and general practice-level characteristics.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using linked records of patients served by one hospital and over 50 general practices in Salford, UK. Statistical analysis consisted of mixed-effects logistic models, relating prescribing safety indicators to potential determinants.

Results

The overall prevalence (proportion of patients with at least one medication safety hazard) was 5.45 % for prescribing indicators and 7.65 % for monitoring indicators. Older patients and those on multiple medications were at higher risk of prescribing hazards, but at lower risk of missed monitoring. The odds of missed monitoring among all patients were 25 % less for males, 50 % less for patients in practices that provide general practitioner training, and threefold higher in practices serving the most deprived compared with the least deprived areas. Practices with more prescribing hazards did not tend to show more monitoring issues.

Conclusions

Systematic collection, collation, and analysis of linked primary and secondary care records produce plausible and useful information about medication safety for a health system. Medication safety surveillance systems should pay close attention to patient age and polypharmacy with respect to both prescribing and monitoring failures; treat prescribing and monitoring as different statistical processes, rather than a combined measure of prescribing safety; and audit the socio-economic equity of missed monitoring.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0304-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

STUDY QUESTION

What is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?

METHODS

A 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 LIMITATIONS

49 927 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 ADDS

The 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 SHARING

National 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.

Identification of an updated set of prescribing--safety indicators for GPs

BACKGROUND

Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking.

AIM

To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator.

DESIGN AND SETTING

RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice.

METHOD

Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7-9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug-drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.

Compliance with quality prescribing indicators in terms of their relationship to financial incentives

OBJECTIVE

To develop quality prescribing indicators for general practitioners (GPs) who are non-monitored and not included in pay-for-performance programs, and to determine compliance with incentivized and non-incentivized indicators.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive cross sectional study.

SETTING

Aljarafe Primary Health Care Area (Andalusian Public Health Care Service, Spain), a rural and suburban area with a population of 323,857 inhabitants. Health assistance in this area is provided by 176 GPs in 37 health centers. Prescribing indicators were developed by a multidisciplinary group using a qualitative technique based on consensus. The members of the consensus group searched for updated recommendations focused on clinical evidence. Prescribing data were obtained from the computerised pharmacy records of reimbursed drugs and clinical data from the electronic clinical databases and hospital admission records.

RESULTS

Fourteen indicators based on the selection of drugs of different therapeutic groups or linked to patient´s clinical information were designed. The compliance with indicators based on the selection of drugs linked to financial incentives was higher than that of indicators not linked to financial incentives. The compliance with indicators based on clinical information varied widely. Inappropriate prescribing ranged from 7 %, in the use of long-acting beta-agonists in asthma, to 86 % in the use of drugs for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in young women.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows better compliance by GPs with indirect and incentivized quality prescribing indicators, included in pay-for-performance programs, compared with not-incentivized indicators based on the relative use of drugs and on the appropriateness prescribing.

Can we quantify harm in general practice records? An assessment of precision and power using computer simulation

Background

Estimating harm rates for specific patient populations and detecting significant changes in them over time are essential if patient safety in general practice is to be improved. Clinical record review (CRR) is arguably the most suitable method for these purposes, but the optimal values and combinations of its parameters (such as numbers of records and practices) remain unknown. Our aims were to: 1. Determine and quantify CRR parameters; 2. Assess the precision and power of feasible CRR scenarios; and 3. Quantify the minimum requirements for adequate precision and acceptable power.

Method

We explored precision and power of CRR scenarios using Monte Carlo simulation. A range of parameter values were combined in 864 different CRR scenarios, with 1000 random data sets generated for each, and harm rates were estimated and tested for change over time by fitting a generalised linear model with a Poisson response.

Results

CRR scenarios with ≥100 detected harm incidents had harm rate estimates with acceptable precision. Harm reductions of 20% or ≥50% were detected with adequate power by those CRR scenarios with at least 100 and 500 harm incidents respectively. The number of detected harm incidents was dependent on the baseline harm rate multiplied by: the period of time reviewed in each record; number of records reviewed per practice; number of practices who reviewed records; and the number of times each record was reviewed.

Conclusion

We developed a simple formula to calculate the minimum values of CRR parameters required to achieve adequate precision and acceptable power when monitoring harm rates. Our findings have practical implications for health care decision-makers, leaders and researchers aiming to measure and reduce harm at regional or national level.

Preventable drug-related morbidity in community pharmacy: commentary on the implications for practice and policy of a novel intervention

This commentary relates to a paper on the development and piloting of a risk management intervention in Portuguese community pharmacy, based on validated preventable drug-related morbidity indicators. In the paper we presented the research programme and implications for future evaluation. However, we believe that the intervention may be seen as important for patient safety without further evaluation. Therefore in this commentary we discuss considerations for service roll-out, by revisiting some issues already presented and by introducing aspects such as service definition and remuneration. We argue that in the absence of service remuneration, redesign of care processes through IT support and inter-professional collaboration, and coaching to encourage the aforementioned efforts it is unlikely that the proposed risk management intervention will succeed in preventing drug-related morbidity.

Bayesian cohort and cross-sectional analyses of the PINCER trial: a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce medication errors in primary care

Background

Medication errors are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. The PINCER study, a cluster randomised controlled trial, is one of the world’s first experimental studies aiming to reduce the risk of such medication related potential for harm in general practice. Bayesian analyses can improve the clinical interpretability of trial findings.

Methods

Experts were asked to complete a questionnaire to elicit opinions of the likely effectiveness of the intervention for the key outcomes of interest - three important primary care medication errors. These were averaged to generate collective prior distributions, which were then combined with trial data to generate Bayesian posterior distributions. The trial data were analysed in two ways: firstly replicating the trial reported cohort analysis acknowledging pairing of observations, but excluding non-paired observations; and secondly as cross-sectional data, with no exclusions, but without acknowledgement of the pairing. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses were compared.

Findings

Bayesian evaluations suggest that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of one of the medication errors by about 50 (estimated to be between 20% and 70%). However, for the other two main outcomes considered, the evidence that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of prescription errors is less conclusive.

Conclusions

Clinicians are interested in what trial results mean to them, as opposed to what trial results suggest for future experiments. This analysis suggests that the PINCER intervention is strongly effective in reducing the likelihood of one of the important errors; not necessarily effective in reducing the other errors. Depending on the clinical importance of the respective errors, careful consideration should be given before implementation, and refinement targeted at the other errors may be something to consider.

Consultations with general practitioners on patient safety measures based on routinely collected data in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To gauge the opinions of doctors working, or interested, in general practice on monitoring patient safety using administrative data. The findings will inform the development of routinely collected data-based patient safety indicators in general practice and elsewhere in primary care.

DESIGN

Non-systematic participant recruitment, using personal contacts and colleagues' recommendations.

SETTING

Face-to-face consultations at participants' places of work, between June 2010 and February 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

Four general practitioners (GPs) and a final year medical student. The four clinicians had between eight to 34 years of clinical practice experience, and held non-clinical positions in addition to their clinical roles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Views on safety issues and improvement priorities, measurement methods, uses of administrative data, role of administrative data in patient safety and experiences of quality and safety initiatives.

RESULTS

Medication and communication were the most commonly identified areas of patient safety concern. Perceived safety barriers included incident-reporting reluctance, inadequate medical education and low computer competency. Data access, financial constraints, policy changes and technology handicaps posed challenges to data use. Suggested safety improvements included better communication between providers and local partnerships between GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The views of GPs and other primary care staff are pivotal to decisions on the future of English primary care and the health system. Broad views of general practice safety issues were shown, with possible reasons for patient harm and quality and safety improvement obstacles. There was general consensus on areas requiring urgent attention and strategies to enhance data use for safety monitoring.

Development of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs using the RAND Appropriateness Method

BACKGROUND

In the UK, a process of revalidation is being introduced to allow doctors to demonstrate that they meet current professional standards, are up-to-date, and fit to practise. Given the serious risks to patients from hazardous use of medicines it will be appropriate, as part of the revalidation process, to assess the safety of prescribing by GPs.

AIM

To identify a set of potential prescribing-safety indicators for the purposes of revalidation of individual GPs in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to identify, develop, and obtain agreement on the indicators in UK general practice.

METHOD

Twelve GPs from across the UK with a wide variety of characteristics assessed indicators for appropriateness of use in revalidation.

RESULTS

Forty-seven safety indicators were considered appropriate for assessing the prescribing safety of individual GPs for the purposes of revalidation (appropriateness was defined as an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 (on a 1-9 scale), with no more than three panel members rating the indicator outside the 3-point distribution around the median]. After removing indicators that were variations on the same theme, a final set of 34 indicators was obtained; these cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic areas, hazardous drug-drug combinations, prescribing with a history of allergy, and inadequate laboratory-test monitoring.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a set of 34 indicators that were considered, by a panel of 12 GPs, to be appropriate for use in assessing the safety of GP prescribing for the purposes of revalidation. Violation of any of the 34 indicators indicates a potential patient-safety problem.

Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. The aims of this study are to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a pharmacist-led information-technology-based complex intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing proportions of patients at risk from potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general (family) practice.

METHODS

RESEARCH SUBJECT GROUP: "At-risk" patients registered with computerised general practices in two geographical regions in England.

DESIGN

Parallel group pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Practices will be randomised to either: (i) Computer-generated feedback; or (ii) Pharmacist-led intervention comprising of computer-generated feedback, educational outreach and dedicated support.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of patients in each practice at six and 12 months post intervention: - with a computer-recorded history of peptic ulcer being prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; - with a computer-recorded diagnosis of asthma being prescribed beta-blockers; - aged 75 years and older receiving long-term prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or loop diuretics without a recorded assessment of renal function and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES; These relate to a number of other examples of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

An economic evaluation will be done of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), comparing the pharmacist-led intervention with simple feedback. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: A qualitative study will be conducted to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals and NHS managers concerning the interventions, and investigate possible reasons why the interventions prove effective, or conversely prove ineffective.

SAMPLE SIZE

34 practices in each of the two treatment arms would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a 50% reduction in error rates for each of the three primary outcome measures in the pharmacist-led intervention arm compared with a 11% reduction in the simple feedback arm.

DISCUSSION

At the time of submission of this article, 72 general practices have been recruited (36 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

Preventing drug related morbidity: a process for facilitating changes in practice

AIM

To describe how quantitative data obtained from applying a series of indicators for preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in the electronic patient record in English general practice can be used to facilitate changes aimed at helping to improve medicines management.

DESIGN

A multidisciplinary discussion forum held at each practice facilitated by a clinical researcher.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

Eight English general practices.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Issues discussed at the multidisciplinary discussion forum and ideas generated by practices for tackling these issues. Progress made by practices after 1, 3, and 6 months.

RESULTS

A number of clinical issues were raised by the practices and ideas for moving them forward were discussed. The issues that were easiest and most straightforward to deal with (for example, reviewing specific patient groups) were quickly addressed in most instances. Practices were less likely to have taken steps towards addressing issues at a systems level.

CONCLUSIONS

Data generated from applying PDRM indicators can be used to facilitate practice-wide discussion on medicines management. Different practices place different priority levels on the issues they wish to pursue. Individual practice "ownership" of these, together with having a central committed figure at the practice, is key to the success of the process.