TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of a complex intervention to improve primary care prescribing
AU - MacBride-Stewart, Sean
AU - Marwick, Charis
AU - Houston, Neil
AU - Watt, Iain
AU - Patton, Andrea
AU - Guthrie, Bruce
N1 - There was no specific funding for this study; however, Sean MacBride-Stewart, Charis Marwick, Andrea Patton, and Bruce Guthrie received research grants from The Health Foundation for the submitted work.
PY - 2017/5
Y1 - 2017/5
N2 - Background: It is uncertain whether improvements in primary care high-risk prescribing seen in research trials can be realised in the real-world setting.Aim: To evaluate the impact of a 1-year system-wide phase IV prescribing safety improvement initiative, which included education, feedback, support to identify patients to review, and small financial incentives.Design and setting: An interrupted time series analysis of targeted high-risk prescribing in all 56 general practices in NHS Forth Valley, Scotland, was performed. In 2013–2014, this focused on high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in older people and NSAIDs with oral anticoagulants; in 2014–2015, it focused on antipsychotics in older people.Method: The primary analysis used segmented regression analysis to estimate impact at the end of the intervention, and 12 months later. The secondary analysis used difference-in-difference methods to compare Forth Valley changes with those in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC).Results: In the primary analysis, downward trends for all three NSAID measures that were existent before the intervention statistically significantly steepened following implementation of the intervention. At the end of the intervention period, 1221 fewer patients than expected were prescribed a high-risk NSAID. In contrast, antipsychotic prescribing in older people increased slowly over time, with no intervention-associated change. In the secondary analysis, reductions at the end of the intervention period in all three NSAID measures were statistically significantly greater in NHS Forth Valley than in NHS GGC, but only significantly greater for two of these measures 12 months after the intervention finished.
AB - Background: It is uncertain whether improvements in primary care high-risk prescribing seen in research trials can be realised in the real-world setting.Aim: To evaluate the impact of a 1-year system-wide phase IV prescribing safety improvement initiative, which included education, feedback, support to identify patients to review, and small financial incentives.Design and setting: An interrupted time series analysis of targeted high-risk prescribing in all 56 general practices in NHS Forth Valley, Scotland, was performed. In 2013–2014, this focused on high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in older people and NSAIDs with oral anticoagulants; in 2014–2015, it focused on antipsychotics in older people.Method: The primary analysis used segmented regression analysis to estimate impact at the end of the intervention, and 12 months later. The secondary analysis used difference-in-difference methods to compare Forth Valley changes with those in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC).Results: In the primary analysis, downward trends for all three NSAID measures that were existent before the intervention statistically significantly steepened following implementation of the intervention. At the end of the intervention period, 1221 fewer patients than expected were prescribed a high-risk NSAID. In contrast, antipsychotic prescribing in older people increased slowly over time, with no intervention-associated change. In the secondary analysis, reductions at the end of the intervention period in all three NSAID measures were statistically significantly greater in NHS Forth Valley than in NHS GGC, but only significantly greater for two of these measures 12 months after the intervention finished.
KW - Antipsychotic drugs
KW - General practice
KW - High-risk prescribing
KW - Interrupted time series analysis
KW - Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
KW - Quality improvement
U2 - 10.3399/bjgp17X690437
DO - 10.3399/bjgp17X690437
M3 - Article
VL - 67
SP - e352-e360
JO - British Journal of General Practice
JF - British Journal of General Practice
SN - 0960-1643
IS - 658
ER -