Defining antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators: what is a new prescription?

Contains fulltext : 95791.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access): Since guidelines on antibiotic drug treatment often focus on appropriate first choice drugs, assessment of guideline adherence should only concentrate on the first drug prescribed, and not on subsequent antibiotics prescribed after failure of the first one. PURPOSE: To determine a valid cut-off point for a definition of "first" or "new" prescription in indicators for the assessment of the quality of antibiotic drug treatment on the basis of pharmaceutical data. METHODS: Three possible definitions for the term "new prescription" were compared, based on three different periods of time, viz. more than 35, 28, or 21 days after starting a previous antibiotic. In an observational study, 1,225 antimicrobial prescriptions from the medical files of five family practices were audited ("clinical classification") and compared with a classification based on the three definitions ("technical classification"). Agreement between these clinical and technical classifications was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa. The technical classification was analyzed as a diagnostic test, using the clinical classification as the gold standard, and sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and post-test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: Defining "new prescription" as "more than 35 days after a previous prescription was issued" resulted in a Cohen's kappa of 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The diagnostic value of this definition was extremely high, with a sensitivity of 0.976, specificity of 0.987, positive likelihood ratio of 77.7, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.02. CONCLUSION: We recommend using a cut-off value of 35 days since the last antimicrobial prescription as the definition of a "new prescription" when no diagnostic information is available, i.e., when using pharmaceutical data to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing behavior.01 januari 201

Determinants of the range of drugs prescribed in general practice: a cross-sectional analysis

Background: Current health policies assume that prescribing is more efficient and rational when general practitioners (GPs) work with a formulary or restricted drugs lists and thus with a limited range of drugs. Therefore we studied determinants of the range of drugs prescribed by general practitioners, distinguishing general GP-characteristics, characteristics of the practice setting, characteristics of the patient population and information sources used by GPs. Methods: Secondary analysis was carried out on data from the Second Dutch Survey in General Practice. Data were available for 138 GPs working in 93 practices. ATC-coded prescription data from electronic medical records, census data and data from GP/ practice questionnaires were analyzed with multilevel techniques. Results: The average GP writes prescriptions for 233 different drugs, i.e. 30% of the available drugs on the market within one year. There is considerable variation between ATC main groups and subgroups and between GPs. GPs with larger patient lists, GPs with higher prescribing volumes and GPs who frequently receive representatives from the pharmaceutical industry have a broader range when controlled for other variables. Conclusion: The range of drugs prescribed is a useful instrument for analysing GPs' prescribing behaviour. It shows both variation between GPs and between therapeutic groups. Statistically significant relationships found were in line with the hypotheses formulated, like the one concerning the influence of the industry. Further research should be done into the relationship between the range and quality of prescribing and the reasons why some GPs prescribe a greater number of different drugs than others.

A cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at implementation of local quality improvement collaboratives to improve prescribing and test ordering performance of general practitioners: Study Protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of guidelines in general practice is not optimal. Although evidence-based methods to improve guideline adherence are available, variation in physician adherence to general practice guidelines remains relatively high. The objective for this study is to transfer a quality improvement strategy based on audit, feedback, educational materials, and peer group discussion moderated by local opinion leaders to the field. The research questions are: is the multifaceted strategy implemented on a large scale as planned?; what is the effect on general practitioners' (GPs) test ordering and prescribing behaviour?; and what are the costs of implementing the strategy?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In order to evaluate the effects, costs and feasibility of this new strategy we plan a multi-centre cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a balanced incomplete block design. Local GP groups in the south of the Netherlands already taking part in pharmacotherapeutic audit meeting groups, will be recruited by regional health officers. Approximately 50 groups of GPs will be randomly allocated to two arms. These GPs will be offered two different balanced sets of clinical topics. Each GP within a group will receive comparative feedback on test ordering and prescribing performance. The feedback will be discussed in the group and working agreements will be created after discussion of the guidelines and barriers to change. The data for the feedback will be collected from existing and newly formed databases, both at baseline and after one year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We are not aware of published studies on successes and failures of attempts to transfer to the stakeholders in the field a multifaceted strategy aimed at GPs' test ordering and prescribing behaviour. This pragmatic study will focus on compatibility with existing infrastructure, while permitting a certain degree of adaptation to local needs and routines.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Nederlands Trial Register ISRCTN40008171</p

Change in antihypertensive drug prescribing after guideline implementation: a controlled before and after study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antihypertensive drug choices and treatment levels are not in accordance with the existing guidelines. We aimed to assess the impact of a guideline implementation intervention on antihypertensive drug prescribing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this controlled before and after study, the effects of a multifaceted (education, audit and feedback, local care pathway) quality programme was evaluated. The intervention was carried out in a health centre between 2002 and 2003. From each health care unit (n = 31), a doctor-nurse pair was trained to act as peer facilitators in the intervention.</p> <p>All antihypertensive drugs prescribed by 25 facilitator general practitioners (intervention GPs) and 53 control GPs were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register for three-month periods in 2001 and 2003. The proportions of patients receiving specific antihypertensive drugs and multiple antihypertensive drugs were measured before and after the intervention for three subgroups of hypertension patients: hypertension only, with coronary heart disease, and with diabetes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all subgroups, the use of multiple concurrent medications increased. For intervention patients with hypertension only, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.99, 1.25; p = 0.06) and for controls 1.13 (1.05, 1.21; p = 0.002). We observed no statistically significant differences in the change in the prescribing of specific antihypertensive agents between the intervention and control groups. The use of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increased in all subgroups (hypertension only intervention patients OR 1.19 (1.06, 1.34; p = 0.004) and controls OR 1.24 (1.15, 1.34; p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A multifaceted guideline implementation intervention does not necessarily lead to significant changes in prescribing performance. Rigorous planning of the interventions and quality projects and their evaluation are essential.</p

Caring for attitudes as a means of caring for patients--improving medical, pharmacy and nursing students' attitudes to each other's professions by engaging them in interprofessional learning

Negative attitudes between pharmacists, doctors and nurses can impact adversely on patients' medicines management. A seven-week interprofessional learning (IPL) intervention was delivered to foster positive attitudes