ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Quality improvement of prescribing safety: a pilot study in primary care using UK electronic health records.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Phenotyping and Control Assessment in Primary Care: Retrospective Multicenter Study Using the Seleida Model.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Use of Primary Care Data in Research and Pharmacovigilance: Eight Scenarios Where Prescription Data are Absent.Drug safety · 2021Review
- Use of prescribing safety quality improvement reports in UK general practices: a qualitative assessment.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Quality improvement of prescribing safety: a pilot study in primary care using UK electronic health records.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality improvement (QI) is a priority for general practice, and GPs are expected to participate in and provide evidence of QI activity. There is growing interest in harnessing the potential of electronic health records (EHR) to improve patient care by supporting practices to find cases that could benefit from a medicines review.
aimTo develop scalable and reproducible prescribing safety reports using patient-level EHR data. DESIGN AND
settingUK general practices that contribute de-identified patient data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).
methodA scoping phase used stakeholder consultations to identify primary care QI needs and potential indicators. QI reports containing real data were sent to 12 pilot practices that used Vision GP software and had expressed interest. The scale-up phase involved automating production and distribution of reports to all contributing practices that used both Vision and EMIS software systems. Benchmarking reports with patient-level case review lists for two prescribing safety indicators were sent to 457 practices in December 2017 following the initial scale-up (Figure 2).
resultsTwo indicators were selected from the Royal College of General Practitioners Patient Safety Toolkit following stakeholder consultations for the pilot phase involving 12 GP practices. Pilot phase interviews showed that reports were used to review individual patient care, implement wider QI actions in the practice, and for appraisal and revalidation.
conclusionElectronic health record data can be used to provide standardised, reproducible reports that can be delivered at scale with minimal resource requirements. These can be used in a national QI initiative that impacts directly on patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.