PURPOSE Avoidable hospitalizations due to adverse drug events and high-risk prescribing are common in older people. Primary care physicians prescribe most on-going medicines. Deprescribing has long been essential to best prescribing practice. We sought to explore the views of primary care physicians on the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in everyday practice to inform the development of an intervention to support safer prescribing. METHODSWe used a snowball sampling technique to identify potential participants. Physicians were selected on the basis of years in practice, employment status, and practice setting, with an additional focus on information-rich participants. Twenty-four semistructured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to identify emergent themes. RESULTSPhysicians described deprescribing as "swimming against the tide" of patient expectations, the medical culture of prescribing, and organizational constraints. They said deprescribing came with inherent risks for both themselves and patients and conveyed a sense of vulnerability in practice. The only incentive to deprescribing they identified was the duty to do what was right for the patient. Physicians recommended organizational changes to support safer prescribing, including targeted funding for annual medicines review, computer prompts, improved information flows between prescribers, improved access to expert advice and user-friendly decision support, increased availability of non-pharmaceutical therapies, and enhanced patient engagement in medicines management. CONCLUSIONSInterventions to support safer prescribing in everyday practice should consider the sociocultural, personal, relational, and organizational constraints on deprescribing. Regulations and policies should be designed to support physicians in practicing according to their professional ethical values.
BackgroundKnowing where and why harm occurs in general practice will assist patients, doctors, and others in making informed decisions about the risks and benefits of treatment options. Research to date has been unable to verify the safety of primary health care and epidemiological research about patient harms in general practice is now a top priority for advancing health systems safety.ObjectiveWe aim to study the incidence, distribution, severity, and preventability of the harms patients experience due to their health care, from the whole-of-health-system lens afforded by electronic general practice patient records.Methods“Harm” is defined as disease, injury, disability, suffering, and death, arising from the health system. The study design is a stratified, 2-level cluster, retrospective records review study. Both general practices and patients will be randomly selected so that the study’s results will apply nationally, after weighting. Stratification by practice size and rurality will allow comparisons between 6 study groups (large, medium-sized, small; urban and rural practices). Records of equal numbers of patients from each study group will be included in the study because there may be systematic differences in patient harms in different types of practices. Eight general practitioner investigators will review 3 years of electronic general practice health records (consultation notes, prescriptions, investigations, referrals, and summaries of hospital care) from 9000 patients registered in 60 general practices. Double-blinded reviews will check the concordance of reviewers’ assessments. Study data will comprise demographic data of all 9000 patients and reviewers’ assessments of whether patients experienced harm arising from health care. Where patient harm is identified, their types, preventability, severity, and outcomes will be coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) 18.0.ResultsWe have recruited practices and collected electronic records from 9078 patients. Reviews of these records are under way. The study is expected to be completed in August 2017.ConclusionsThe design of this complex study is presented with discussion on data collection methods, sampling weights, power analysis, and statistical approach. This study will show the epidemiology of patient harms recorded in general practice records for all of New Zealand and will show whether this epidemiology differs by rural location and clinic size.
New Zealand's no-fault treatment injury claims database provides information about primary care patient safety events from an unusual 'no-fault' perspective. This analysis reinforces previous research identifying medication as a high-risk primary care activity and further identifies other primary care activities (dental care, injections, venepuncture, cryotherapy and ear syringing) as carrying important risks for patient harm.
Background General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients’ medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients’ health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs’ deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. Methods In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs’ deprescribing decisions. Results Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). Interpretation The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.
Background Statins are widely used to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). With advancing age, the risks of statins might outweigh the potential benefits. It is unclear which factors influence general practitioners’ (GPs) advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. Objective To investigate the influence of a history of CVD , statin-related side effects, frailty and short life expectancy , on GPs’ advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. Design We invited GPs to participate in this case-based survey. GPs were presented with 8 case vignettes describing patients > 80 years using a statin, and asked whether they would advise stopping statin treatment. Main Measures Cases varied in history of CVD, statin-related side effects and frailty, with and without shortened life expectancy (< 1 year) in the context of metastatic, non-curable cancer. Odds ratios adjusted for GP characteristics (OR adj ) were calculated for GPs’ advice to stop. Key Results Two thousand two hundred fifty GPs from 30 countries participated (median response rate 36%). Overall, GPs advised stopping statin treatment in 46% (95%CI 45–47) of the case vignettes; with shortened life expectancy, this proportion increased to 90% (95CI% 89–90). Advice to stop was more frequent in case vignettes without CVD compared to those with CVD (OR adj 13.8, 95%CI 12.6–15.1), with side effects compared to without OR adj 1.62 (95%CI 1.5–1.7) and with frailty (OR adj 4.1, 95%CI 3.8–4.4) compared to without. Shortened life expectancy increased advice to stop (OR adj 50.7, 95%CI 45.5–56.4) and was the strongest predictor for GP advice to stop, ranging across countries from 30% (95%CI 19–42) to 98% (95% CI 96–99). Conclusions The absence of CVD, the presence of statin-related side effects, and frailty were all independently associated with GPs’ advice to stop statins in patients aged > 80 years. Overall, and within all countries, cancer-related short life expectancy was the strongest independent predictor of GPs’ advice to stop statins. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4795-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
INTRODUCTION: Patient safety is a major concern, both in hospitals and in primary care settings. The current focus internationally is on the prospect of improving patient safety through cultural transformation. There are no tools designed to assess and strengthen safety culture in New Zealand (NZ) general practices, but a United Kingdom (UK) group have developed a toolthe Manchester Patient Safety Framework (MaPSaF)to assess safety culture in UK Primary Care Trusts. We aimed to modify the MaPSaF and test its acceptability and utility in the NZ primary care setting. METHODS: We modified the MaPSaF to suit the NZ context and then used it in 12 Dunedin general practices at baseline and at three months. Participants were all practice personnel present in the practice on the day. Participants rated their practice individually on each of the nine MaPSaF dimensions of safety culture, then discussed the dimensions and their scores and chose a practice-wide consensus score for each dimension in turn. These discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed to determine acceptability and utility of the modified framework in NZ practices. FINDINGS: The framework process took about one hour. Most participants found the process acceptable and useful. The framework directed team discussion about patient safety issues and facilitated communication and prompted some practices to make changes. Some participants from smaller practices deemed the systems advocated in the framework superfluous. CONCLUSION: The framework can be adapted and used in NZ practices to stimulate learning about safety culture and to facilitate team communication. KEYWORDS: Family practice; patient safety; primary care; safety culture
INTRODUCTION Practice size and location may affect the quality and safety of health care. Little is known about contemporary New Zealand general practice characteristics in terms of staffing, ownership and services. AIM To describe and compare the characteristics of small, medium and large general practices in rural and urban New Zealand. METHODS Seventy-two general practices were randomly selected from the 2014 Primary Health Organisation database and invited to participate in a records review study. Forty-five recruited practices located throughout New Zealand provided data on staff, health-care services and practice ownership. Chi-square and other non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare practices. RESULTS The 45 study practices constituted 4.6% of New Zealand practices. Rural practices were located further from the nearest regional base hospital (rural median 65.0 km, urban 7.5 km (P < 0.001)), nearest local hospital (rural 25.7 km, urban 7.0 km (P = 0.002)) and nearest neighbouring general practitioner (GP) (rural 16.0 km, urban 1.0 km (P = 0.007)). In large practices, there were more enrolled patients per GP FTE than both medium-sized and small practices (mean 1827 compared to 1457 and 1120 respectively, P = 0.019). Nurses in large practices were more likely to insert intravenous lines (P = 0.026) and take blood (P = 0.049). There were no significant differences in practice ownership arrangements according to practice size or rurality. CONCLUSION Study practices were relatively homogenous. Unsurprisingly, rural practices were further away from hospitals. Larger practices had higher patient-to-doctor ratios and increased nursing scope. The study sample is small; findings need to be confirmed by specifically powered research.
INTRODUCTION High-risk prescribing in general practice is common and places patients at increased risk of adverse events. AIM The Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention, comprising audit and feedback plus practice mail-out to patients with high-risk prescribing, was designed to promote medicines review and support safer prescribing. This study aims to test the SPACE intervention feasibility in general practice. METHODS This feasibility study involved an Auckland Primary Health Organisation (PHO), a clinical advisory pharmacist, two purposively sampled urban general practices, and seven GPs. The acceptability and utility of the SPACE intervention were assessed by semi- structured interviews involving study participants, including 11 patients with high-risk prescribing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a general inductive approach to identify emergent themes. RESULTS The pharmacist said the SPACE intervention facilitated communication with GPs, and provided a platform for their clinical advisory role at no extra cost to the PHO. GPs said the feedback session with the pharmacist was educational but added to time pressures. GPs selected 29 patients for the mail-out. Some GPs were concerned the mail-out might upset patients, but patients said they felt cared for. Some patients intended to take the letter to their next appointment and discuss their medicines with their GP; others said there were already many things to discuss and not enough time. Some patients were confused by the medicines information brochure. DISCUSSION The SPACE intervention is feasible in general practice. The medicines information brochure needs simplification. Further research is needed to test the effect of SPACE on high-risk prescribing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.