Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24448848›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Developing a complex intervention to improve prescribing safety in primary care: mixed methods feasibility and optimisation pilot study.

Aileen M Grant, Bruce Guthrie, Tobias Dreischulte

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01425502 (Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

NCT01425502 nacompletednot on this map

Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial to Test the Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention in Reducing High Risk Prescribing of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Antiplatelet Agents

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of DundeeRan2012 to 2014Enrolled33ConditionsDrug SafetyArmsDQIP Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The dangers of NSAIDs: look both ways.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aileen M GrantQuality, Safety and Informatics Group, Population Health Sciences, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Bruce Guthrie
Tobias Dreischulte
University of Dundee · GBNHS Tayside · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(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.

designMixed method study.

settingGeneral practices in two Scottish Health boards.

participants4 purposively sampled general practices of varying size and socioeconomic deprivation. OUTCOME MEASURES: 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)'.

interventionThe 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.

resultsPractices 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.

conclusions'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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPrimary Health CareDrug PrescriptionsFeasibility StudiesHumansPilot ProjectsQuality ImprovementClinical Pharmacology

Identifiers

PMID24448848
PMCPMC3902335
OpenAlexW2124959039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.