Grant Aileen M, Guthrie Bruce, Dreischulte Tobias
Quality, Safety and Informatics Group, Population Health Sciences, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 21;4(1):e004153. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004153.
(A) To measure the extent to which different candidate outcome measures identified high-risk prescribing that is potentially changeable by the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention.(B) To explore the value of reviewing identified high-risk prescribing to clinicians.(C) To optimise the components of the DQIP intervention.
Mixed method study.
General practices in two Scottish Health boards.
4 purposively sampled general practices of varying size and socioeconomic deprivation.
Prescribing measures targeting (1) high-risk use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelets; (2) 'Asthma control' and (3) 'Antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation (AF)'.
The prescribing measures were used to identify patients for review by general practices. The ability of the measures to identify potentially changeable high-risk prescribing was measured as the proportion of patients reviewed where practices identified a need for action. Field notes were recorded from meetings between researchers and staff and key staff participated in semistructured interviews exploring their experience of the piloted intervention processes.
Practices identified a need for action in 68%, 25% and 18% of patients reviewed for prescribing measures (1), (2) and (3), respectively. General practitioners valued being prompted to review patients, and perceived that (1) 'NSAID and antiplatelet' and (2) 'antithrombotics in AF' were the most important to act on. Barriers to initial and ongoing engagement and to sustaining improvements in prescribing were identified.
'NSAIDs and antiplatelets' measures were selected as the most suitable outcome measures for the DQIP trial, based on evidence of this prescribing being more easily changeable. In response to the barriers identified, the intervention was designed to include a financial incentive, additional ongoing feedback on progress and reprompting review of patients, whose high-risk prescribing was restarted after a decision to stop.
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502.
(A) 衡量不同候选结局指标识别出的高风险处方在多大程度上可通过初级保健中的数据驱动质量改进(DQIP)干预而改变。(B) 探讨向临床医生反馈已识别出的高风险处方的价值。(C) 优化 DQIP 干预的组成部分。
混合方法研究。
苏格兰两个卫生委员会的全科诊所。
4 个按目的抽样的规模和社会经济贫困程度各异的全科诊所。
针对以下方面的处方指标:(1) 非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)和抗血小板药物的高风险使用;(2) “哮喘控制”;(3) “心房颤动(AF)中的抗栓治疗”。
处方指标用于确定需由全科诊所进行复查的患者。这些指标识别潜在可改变的高风险处方的能力通过实践中确定需要采取行动的复查患者比例来衡量。研究人员与工作人员之间的会议记录了现场笔记,关键工作人员参与了半结构化访谈,探讨他们对试点干预过程的体验。
在针对处方指标(1)、(2)和(3)进行复查的患者中,实践分别确定 68%、25%和 18%的患者需要采取行动。全科医生重视被提示复查患者,并认为(1)“NSAID 和抗血小板药物”以及(2)“AF 中的抗栓治疗”是最需要采取行动的方面。确定了初始参与和持续参与以及维持处方改进的障碍。
基于该处方更容易改变的证据,“NSAIDs 和抗血小板药物”指标被选为 DQIP 试验最合适的结局指标。针对已确定的障碍,干预措施设计包括经济激励、关于进展的额外持续反馈以及重新提示对高风险处方停药后又重新开始的患者进行复查。
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502。