ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022
Safer citalopram use in primary care: Can staff education and prescribing prompts improve adherence to national guidance? A closed loop clinical audit, service evaluation and quality improvement study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Citalopram is a drug with many important safety considerations in prescribing including dosage adjustments, pre-prescription testing and multiple interactions. Because of this, the UK government issued advice regarding the prescription of citalopram and escitalopram in its Drug Safety Update Vol 5 Issue 5, Dec 2011,[1] and the expectation is that all prescribers adhere to this. Purpose/Aim: To establish the adherence to prescribing guidance of citalopram at the practice level, implement change to address the lack of adherence and then evaluate the effectiveness of the change using re-audit techniques. Methods: Patients were identified using data searching techniques on EMIS for February-April 2020. Parameters searched for included age, hepatic impairment, cardiac disease, known QT prolongation and concomitant use with other QT-prolonging medication. Following the first cycle teaching on the safer use of citalopram was delivered to all prescribers and an EMIS prompt was also set up. A second audit cycle was then carried out. Data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software to assess the significance of the results. Results: Following the presentation of the first cycle findings and the introduction of the EMIS safety prompt, there was a statistically significant reduction in incorrect citalopram dose prescription in the over 65s (8 vs 1), a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of dangerous drug interactions involving citalopram (44 vs 8) and a significant reduction in the incidence of unsafe prescribing of citalopram overall (47 vs 9). Conclusion: The introduction of an EMIS prompt and one-off prescriber teaching resulted in a statistically significant reduction in incorrect prescriptions of citalopram when re-audited a year later. These interventions resulted in improved patient safety and more effective use of resources and could easily be replicated at other practices throughout the country both for citalopram and other drugs with multiple safety considerations.
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.