Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15301562›Full record

ReviewDrugs2004

Repeat prescribing: scale, problems and quality management in ambulatory care patients.

Peter A G M De Smet, Maaike Dautzenberg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. GPs' awareness of pregnancy: trends and association with hazardous medication use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  4. Evaluation and pharmacists perspective of repeat prescribing process in refill clinics.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Analysis of polypharmacy in older patients in primary care using a multidisciplinary expert panel.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter A G M De SmetScientific Institute Dutch Pharmacists, The Hague, The NetherlandsDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. pdesmet@winap.pl
Maaike Dautzenberg

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reported scale of repeat prescriptions ranges from 29% to 75% of all items prescribed, depending on the definition of repeat prescribing and other variables. It is likely that a substantial part of repeat prescribing by general practitioners (GPs) occurs without direct doctor-patient contact. While this reduces the workload for the GP and is convenient for the patient, it does not provide the adequate control that is needed to ensure that every repeat prescription is still appropriate, effective and well tolerated, and that it is still being viewed upon and taken by the patient as intended. Infrequent therapy reviews may lead to failure to prevent, identify and solve drug-related problems and drug wastage, and may, thereby, have a negative impact on the effectiveness, safety or cost of the medications prescribed. Studies evaluating the repeat prescribing process have shown that GPs and medical practices vary widely in their degree of administrative and clinical control of repeat prescriptions. Contrary to the opinion that GPs cannot change prescribing behaviour when the prescription is initiated by a medical specialist, GPs have their own responsibility for controlling the repeats of such prescriptions. Intervention studies suggest that a medication review by a pharmacist can help to reduce drug-related problems with repeat prescriptions, and the effectiveness of the intervention may be increased by combining the medication review with a consultation of the patient's medical records and a patient interview. In several studies, such an intervention was relatively inexpensive and, therefore, feasible. However, these conclusions should be viewed with appropriate caution because a number of caveats pertain. There is still no evidence that these types of intervention improve health-related quality of life or reduce healthcare cost, and so far only a few trials have produced any evidence of clinical improvement. As implicit and explicit screening criteria have their own benefits and limitations, a combined application may offer a more thorough assessment but may also be more complex and time consuming. Further studies on the development and evaluation of repeat prescription management models are needed, preferably focussing on improving clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes. New studies should investigate the effects of: different types of interventions; different organisational models; different target populations; and selecting and training different types of healthcare professionals. Future studies should also assess whether results are sustained, the optimal time interval between reviews of repeat prescriptions, and the possibilities offered by new computerised support technologies.

Indexed as

Quality Assurance, Health CareAmbulatory CareDrug PrescriptionsDrug TherapyHumansPatientsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpecialization

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.