Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 39–46 | Cite as

Influencing NSAID prescribing in primary care using different feedback strategies

  • Sarah Braybrook
  • Roger Walker
Article

Abstract

The Audit Commission endorsed the role of the prescribing adviser in promoting safe, rational and cost‐effective prescribing by general medical practitioners (GPs). However, whether such roles should involve practice visits, facilitation of educational meetings, production of local bulletins, or a combination of these and other approaches is unclear. Few UK studies have investigated the best methods to influence prescribing on a large scale in primary care. The present study was designed to determine the effectiveness of active compared to passive practice specific prescribing feedback. The programme focused on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) since concern has been expressed about their use, which accounts for 4% of volume and 5% of the cost of UK National Health Service drugs prescribed in primary care,Sixty‐six of the 91 general medical practices contracted to Gwent Health Authority agreed to participate in the study and were randomly stratified by practice size, locality, fund‐holding and dispensing status into 2 groups. Group 1 received active feedback via practice visits from the pharmaceutical prescribing adviser to present prescribing analysis and cost data (PACT) concerning NSAID use. Group 2 received passive feedback, a practice specific prescribing analysis workbook that contained similar information to that given to Group 1 practices. Practices not wishing to enter the study were used as a self selected reference group (Group 3) which received no information on NSAIDs from the prescribing adviser. Practice visits and the distribution and completion of workbooks occurred between September 1993 and March 1994, PACT data for all NSAIDs was used to identify changes in prescribing before and after the programme. A combination of 27 indicators, in terms of items and cost per 1000 patients, were chosen to identify overall changes and potential switches between individual drugs, or to generic alternatives.Comparison of the practices in each of the three groups at analysis revealed similar distribution in terms of stratification criteria. Eleven (38%) Group 2 practices returned completed workbooks. Overview indicators (those not targeted) showed similar trends of either increase or decrease, in cost and volume, across all three groups, whereas targeted indicators demonstrated a more mixed picture between groups. In summary the total number of statistically significant changes for targeted indicators in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 10, 8 and 1 (changes in items per 1000 patients), and 12, 10 and 3 (changes in cost per 1000 patients) respectively. Targeted indicators revealed more statistically significant changes in Group 1 (active feedback) than Group 2 passive feedback) which showed more changes than Group 3 (reference group). Active feedback was more effective at bringing about a required change than the use of passive feedback; both approaches had more impact than that registered by the reference group. The Group 2 analysis presented included both responders and non‐responders, thus a more marked benefit of the workbook was perhaps masked. These results have implications for the future provision of prescribing advice to practices. Advisers currently use both active and passive methods to provide prescribing feedback to practices. The high resource intensiveness of practice visits leads many authorities to rely increasingly on less effective methods such as bulletins. Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of methods used to influence prescribing are required.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A Prescription for Improvement. Audit Commission, Health and Personal Social Services Report No.1,1994. HMSO.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Quality assurance for drug prescribing. Quality Assurance in Health Care, 1990;2(1):37-58.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris CM et al. Prescribing-a suitable case for treatment. Journal of the Royal College of General Pract 1984 Occasional Paper 24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newton-Syms FAO et al. The influence of an academic representative on prescribing by general practitioners. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1992;33:69-73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braybrook S, Walker R. Influencing prescribing in primary care: a comparison of two different prescribing feedback methods. Journal Of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 1996;21:247-54.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leufkens HGM. Pharmacy records in pharmacoepidemiology. 1990 Ph.D thesis. University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holt WS, Mazzuca SA. Prescribing behaviours of family physicians in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Family Medicine, 1992;24,524-7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keys J, Beardon PHG, Lau C, Lang CS, McDevitt DG. GPs use of NSAIDs in Tayside and Fife regions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1992;85,442-5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al Arfag A, Davis P. Osteoarthritis. Current treatment regimens. Drugs, 1991;41, 193-201.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones AC, Doherty M. The treatment of osteoarthritis. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1992;33,357-63.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance. Committee on Safety of Medicines, 1994;20,9-11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stross JK, Bole GG. Evaluation of an educational program for primary care practitioners, on the management of osteoarthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 1985;28,108-11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newton-Syms FAO, Dawson PH, Cooke J, Feely M, Booth TG, Jerwood D, Calvert RT. The influence of an academic representative on prescribing by general practitioners. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1992;33,9-73.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drexler PG, Lambdin CS. Reducing outpatient costs of NSAIDs at a Department of Veterans Affairs teaching hospital. Journal of Pharmacy Technology, 1993;9,10-13.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan B, Farris KB, Kirking DM. Assessing physician choice of NSAIDs in a health maintenance organisation. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy, the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 1993;27,1393-9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutters C, Keat A, Lant A. Improving prescribing of NSAIDs in Hospital: an educational approach. British Journal of Rheumatology, 1993;32, 618-622.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kay EA. Improving prescribing of NSAIDs (Editorial). British Journal of Rheumatology, 1993;32,531-2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandhu G. Academic detailing to influence non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in general practice. Australian Prescriber, 1993;16 Supplement 1,38-40.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statistical bulletin 1993/5. Statistics of prescriptions dispensed in the FHSAs: England 1981 to 1991. London: Department of Health,1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diwan VK, Wahlstrom R, Tomson G, Beerman B, Sterky G, Eriksson B. Effects of “group detailing” on the prescribing of lipid-lowering drugs: a randomised controlled trial in Swedish primary care. Journal Clinical Epidemiology, 1995;48,705-11.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ekedahl A, Petersson B, Eklund P, Rametsteiner G, Melander. Prescribing patterns and drug costs: Effects of formulary recommendations and community pharmacists’ information campaign. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 1994;2,194-8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schaffner W, Ray WA, Federspiel CF, Miller WO. Improving antibiotic prescribing in office practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983;250,1728-32.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983;308, 1457-63.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zijestra, IF. De regrovaal ueinisch farmacoloog (Pharmacotherapy FTO groups-community pharmacists with GPs) 1991 Ph.D thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Batty KT, Littlewood AM. Evaluation of generic-brand name knowledge. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy, the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 1991;25, 1138.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Zijsling DI. Impact of a drug bulletin on the knowledge, perception of drug utility, and prescribing behaviour of physicians. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy, the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 1990;24, 87-92.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach (“academic detailing”) to improve clinical decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990;263,549-56.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NAHAT. Priority setting in the NHS: the drugs budget. House of Commons health committee inquiry, Evidence of NAHAT 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Britten N, Brant S, Cairns A, Hall WW, Jones I, Salisbury C, Virji S, Herxheimer A. Continued prescribing of inappropriate drugs in general practice. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 1995;20,199-205.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sapienza A. Price and utilization controls on drugs. Pharmaceutical News, 1995; 2,32-3.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Anon. Little hope of avoiding recurrence of limited list problems? Pharmaceutical Journal, 1993;250,177.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shenfield GM, Jones AN, Paterson JW. Effect of restrictions on prescribing patterns for dextropropoxyphene. British Medical Journal, 1980;281,651-53.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J, Ross-Degnan, Gortmaker S. Payment restrictions for prescription drugs under Medicaid: Effects on therapy, cost and equity. New England Journal Medicine, 1987;317,550-6.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Upton DR, Taylor JK, Holmes GKT, Poston JW. Effects of withdrawal of co-danthramer on use of laxatives in a district general hospital. British Medical Journal, 1988;297,1446-7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pearce MJ, Begg EJ. A review of limited lists and formularies. Are they cost-effective? Pharmacoeconomics, 1992;1,191-202.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Braybrook
    • 1
  • Roger Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Gloucester and South Tewkesbury, NHSGloucesterUK

Personalised recommendations