Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33906666›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Use of prescribing safety quality improvement reports in UK general practices: a qualitative assessment.

Nada F Khan, Helen P Booth, Puja Myles, David Mullett, Arlene Gallagher, Catheryn Evans, Nicholas Pb Thomas, Janet Valentine

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nada F KhanAcademic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Level 10, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. nadakhan@nhs.net.
Helen P BoothClinical Practice Research Datalink, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU, UK.
Puja MylesClinical Practice Research Datalink, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU, UK.
David MullettRoyal College of General Practitioners, 30 Euston Square, London, NW1 2FB, UK.
Arlene GallagherClinical Practice Research Datalink, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU, UK.
Catheryn EvansClinical Practice Research Datalink, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU, UK.
Nicholas Pb ThomasRoyal College of General Practitioners, 30 Euston Square, London, NW1 2FB, UK.
Janet ValentineClinical Practice Research Datalink, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and reduce prescribing errors. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) QI initiative uses routinely collected electronic primary care data to provide bespoke practice-level reports on prescribing safety. The aim of this study was to explore how the QI reports were used, barriers and facilitators to use, long-term culture change and perceived impact on patient care and practices systems as a result of receiving the reports.

methodsA qualitative study using purposive sampling of practices contributing to the CPRD, semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. We interviewed general practitioners, pharmacists, practice managers and research nurses.

resultsWe conducted 18 interviews, and organised themes summarising the use of QI reports in practice: receiving the report, facilitators and barriers to acting upon the reports, acting upon the report, and how the reports contribute to a quality culture. Effective dissemination of reports, and a positive attitude to audit and the perceived relevance of the clinical topic facilitated use. Lack of time and failure to see or act upon the reports meant they were not used. Factors influencing use of the reports included the structure of the report, ease of identifying cases, and perceptions about coding accuracy. GPs and pharmacists used the reports to conduct case reviews and directly contact patients to discuss unsafe prescribing and patient medication preferences. Finally, the reports contributed to the development of a quality culture within practices through promoting audit activity and acting as a reminder of good prescribing behaviours, promoting future patient safety initiatives, contributing to continuing professional development and improving local networks.

conclusionsThis study found the reports facilitated individual case review leading to an enhanced sense of quality culture in practices where they were utilised. Our findings demonstrate that the reports were generally considered useful and have been used to support patient safety and clinical practice in specific cases.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementUnited KingdomAuditGeneral practicePrescribing safetyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID33906666
PMCPMC8077765

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.