Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36383560›Full record

Observational studyPLoS medicine2022

Scaling-up a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER) to reduce hazardous prescribing in general practices: Multiple interrupted time series study.

Sarah Rodgers, Amelia C Taylor, Stephen A Roberts, Thomas Allen, Darren M Ashcroft, James Barrett, Matthew J Boyd, Rachel A Elliott, Kamlesh Khunti, Aziz Sheikh and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Impact of structured medication reviews on prescribing in English primary care: a retrospective observational cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Adoption of clinical pharmacist roles in primary care: longitudinal evidence from English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah RodgersSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-1982
Amelia C TaylorSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8875-5779
Stephen A RobertsCentre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7477-7731
Thomas AllenManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2972-7911
Darren M AshcroftCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2958-915X
James BarrettPRIMIS, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Matthew J BoydSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2997-5090
Rachel A ElliottManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3650-0168
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2343-7099
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Despina LaparidouCommunity and Health Research Unit, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5427-7422
Aloysius Niroshan SiriwardenaCommunity and Health Research Unit, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2484-8201
Anthony J AverySchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7591-4438
University of Nottingham · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Department of Health PSTRC-2016-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices. METHODS AND

findingsWe used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention.

conclusionsThe PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

Indexed as

General PracticePharmacistsHumansInformation TechnologyInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMedication Errors

Identifiers

PMID36383560
PMCPMC9718399
OpenAlexW4309134936

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.