Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26546137›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Bad apples or spoiled barrels? Multilevel modelling analysis of variation in high-risk prescribing in Scotland between general practitioners and between the practices they work in.

Bruce Guthrie, Peter T Donnan, Douglas J Murphy, Boikanyo Makubate, Tobias Dreischulte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prevalence and predictors of potentially inappropriate prescribing in middle-aged adults: a repeated cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

5 authors.

Bruce GuthrieQuality, Safety and Informatics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Division, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, UK.
Peter T DonnanDundee Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Population Health Sciences Division, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, UK.
Douglas J MurphyUniversity of Dundee Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Boikanyo MakubateFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.
Tobias DreischulteNHS Tayside Medicines Governance Unit, Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 10/2000/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrimary care high-risk prescribing causes significant harm, but it is unclear if it is largely driven by individuals (a 'bad apple' problem) or by practices having higher or lower risk prescribing cultures (a 'spoiled barrel' problem). The study aimed to examine the extent of variation in high-risk prescribing between individual prescribers and between the practices they work in. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsMultilevel logistic regression modelling of routine cross-sectional data from 38 Scottish general practices for 181,010 encounters between 398 general practitioners (GPs) and 26,539 patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events (ADEs) of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) due to age, comorbidity or co-prescribing. OUTCOME MEASURE: Initiation of a new NSAID prescription in an encounter between GPs and eligible patients.

resultsA new high-risk NSAID was initiated in 1953 encounters (1.1% of encounters, 7.4% of patients). Older patients, those with more vulnerabilities to NSAID ADEs and those with polypharmacy were less likely to have a high-risk NSAID initiated, consistent with GPs generally recognising the risk of NSAIDs in eligible patients. Male GPs were more likely to initiate a high-risk NSAID than female GPs (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.16). After accounting for patient characteristics, 4.2% (95% CI 2.1 to 8.3) of the variation in high-risk NSAID prescribing was attributable to variation between practices, and 14.2% (95% CI 11.4 to 17.3) to variation between GPs. Three practices had statistically higher than average high-risk prescribing, but only 15.7% of GPs with higher than average high-risk prescribing and 18.5% of patients receiving such a prescription were in these practices.

conclusionsThere was much more variation in high-risk prescribing between GPs than between practices, and only targeting practices with higher than average rates will miss most high-risk NSAID prescribing. Primary care prescribing safety improvement should ideally target all practices, but encourage practices to consider and act on variation between prescribers in the practice.

Indexed as

General PractitionersAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansInappropriate PrescribingLogistic ModelsMaleMultilevel AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CarePolypharmacyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalPRIMARY CARESTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODSTHERAPEUTICS

Identifiers

PMID26546137
PMCPMC4636636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.