Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice : the PRACtICe Study

Report prepared by the University of Nottingham, University of Reading and University of Hertfordshir

Development of a decision support tool to facilitate primary care management of patients with abnormal liver function tests without clinically apparent liver disease [HTA03/38/02]. Abnormal Liver Function Investigations Evaluation (ALFIE)

Liver function tests (LFTs) are routinely performed in primary care, and are often the gateway to further invasive and/or expensive investigations. Little is known of the consequences in people with an initial abnormal liver function (ALF) test in primary care and with no obvious liver disease. Further investigations may be dangerous for the patient and expensive for Health Services. The aims of this study are to determine the natural history of abnormalities in LFTs before overt liver disease presents in the population and identify those who require minimal further investigations with the potential for reduction in NHS costs

Study protocol: The Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study - a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study

Abstract Background Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. Methods In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. Discussion Integration of the three intervention elements - proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification - is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. Trial Registration The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/1/1745-6215-11-95.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/2/1745-6215-11-95.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/3/1745-6215-11-95-S1.DOCPeer Reviewe

Insights into frequent asthma exacerbations from a primary care perspective and the implications of UK National Review of Asthma Deaths recommendations

The United Kingdom National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) recommends that patients who require ≥3 courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for exacerbations in the past year or those on British Thoracic Society (BTS) Step 4/5 treatment must be referred to a specialist asthma service. The aim of the study was to identify the proportion of asthma patients in primary care that fulfil NRAD criteria for specialist referral and factors associated with frequent exacerbations. A total of 2639 adult asthma patients from 10 primary care practices in Glasgow, UK were retrospectively studied between 2014 and 2015. Frequent exacerbators and short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) over-users were identified if they received ≥2 confirmed OCS courses for asthma and ≥13 SABA inhalers in the past year, respectively. Community dispensing data were used to assess treatment adherence defined as taking ≥75% of prescribed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. The study population included 185 (7%) frequent exacerbators, 137 (5%) SABA over-users, and 319 (12%) patients on BTS Step 4/5 treatment. Among frequent exacerbators, 41% required BTS Step 4/5 treatment, 46% had suboptimal ICS adherence, 42% had not attended an asthma review in the past year and 42% had no previous input from a specialist asthma service. Older age, female gender, BTS Step 4/5, SABA over-use and co-existing COPD diagnosis increased the risk of frequent exacerbations independently. Fourteen per 100 asthma patients would fulfil the NRAD criteria for specialist referral. Better collaboration between primary and secondary care asthma services is needed to improve chronic asthma care

Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study : a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data

High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications

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

Patterns of risk of cancer in patients with metal-on-metal hip replacements versus other bearing surface types: a record linkage study between a prospective joint registry and general practice electronic health records in England.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that metal-on-metal hip implants may cause cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate patterns and timing of risk of cancer in patients with metal-on-metal total hip replacements (THR). METHODS: In a linkage study between the English National Joint Registry (NJR) and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we selected all THR surgeries (NJR) between 2003 and 2010 (n = 11,540). THR patients were stratified by type of bearing surface. Patients were followed up for cancer and Poisson regression was used to derive adjusted relative rates (RR). RESULTS: The risk of cancer was similar in patients with hip resurfacing (RR 0.69; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.39–1.22) or other types of bearing surfaces (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.64–1.43) compared to individuals with stemmed metal-on-metal THR. The pattern of cancer risk over time did not support a detrimental effect of metal hip implants. There was substantial confounding: patients with metal-on-metal THRs used fewer drugs and had less comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Metal-on-metal THRs were not associated with an increased risk of cancer. There were substantial baseline differences between the different hip implants, indicating possibility of confounding in the comparisons between different types of THR implants

EVALUATING STATE POLICY INTERVENTIONS FOR OPIOID ABUSE AND DIVERSION: THE IMPACT ON CONSUMERS, HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, AND THE U.S. MARKET FOR PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS

Prescription opioid pain reliever utilization has been increasing since the 1990s, due in part to changes in recommendations for the treatment of chronic pain, but also to abuse and diversion. One innovative policy solution to the abuse and diversion of prescription opioids is state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), which provide prescribers and other selected parties with patient controlled substance dispensation history; thereby, correcting an information asymmetry problem between prescribers and patients. The widespread implementation of state PDMPs, which vary in program design and requirements, has resulted in a variety of intended and unintended consequences. Previous PDMP evaluations have suggested such outcomes as the reduction of consumer access to opioids, the influencing of healthcare provider prescribing behaviors for opioids, and the re-shaping of the United States market for prescription opioids. PDMPs may also be associated with unintended outcomes: namely, the restriction of pharmaceutical opioids could be associated with an increase in heroin use, as evidenced by increases in heroin substance abuse treatment facility discharges. The analyses in this project examine the influence of PDMPs on healthcare providers and the market for prescription drugs by comparing trends in opioid utilization in states with varying PDMP features using Medicaid prescription utilization data and commercial insurance claims. The effect of PDMPs on consumers is explored with an analysis comparing substance abuse treatment facility discharge data for heroin abuse with pharmaceutical opioid prescriptions before and after PDMP regulatory change. Finally, the impact of other related opioid policy interventions, opioid overdose medication access laws, are analyzed by comparing opioid overdose mortality across states with differing overdose medication access policies over time. Contributions to the understanding about the impacts of these state-level opioid abuse and diversion policies can be used to improve or amplify intended outcomes and ameliorate unintended consequences