A cluster randomised stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted information technology-based intervention in reducing high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets in primary medical care: The DQIP study protocol

Implementation Science

Bruce Guthrie²  Shaun Treweek²  Dennis Petrie³  Peter Davey²  Colin McCowan²  Peter Donnan¹  Aileen Grant²  Tobias Dreischulte² 

[1] Dundee Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit (DEBU), University of Dundee, Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee DD2 4BF, UK;Population Health Sciences, Quality, Safety and Informatics Research Group, University of Dundee, Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee DD2 4BF, UK;University of Dundee, Perth Rd, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK

关键词: Primary healthcare;    Randomised controlled trial;    Stepped wedge;    Clinical;    Decision support systems;    Medication review;    Medication error;    Antiplatelet;    Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug;    Adverse drug event;   

Others  :  828886
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-24

 received in 2011-10-04, accepted in 2012-03-23,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

High-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents accounts for a significant proportion of hospital admissions due to preventable adverse drug events. The recently completed PINCER trial has demonstrated that a one-off pharmacist-led information technology (IT)-based intervention can significantly reduce high-risk prescribing in primary care, but there is evidence that effects decrease over time and employing additional pharmacists to facilitate change may not be sustainable.

Methods/design

We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled with a stepped wedge design in 40 volunteer general practices in two Scottish health boards. Eligible practices are those that are using the INPS Vision clinical IT system, and have agreed to have relevant medication-related data to be automatically extracted from their electronic medical records. All practices (clusters) that agree to take part will receive the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention, but will be randomised to one of 10 start dates. The DQIP intervention has three components: a web-based informatics tool that provides weekly updated feedback of targeted prescribing at practice level, prompts the review of individual patients affected, and summarises each patient's relevant risk factors and prescribing; an outreach visit providing education on targeted prescribing and training in the use of the informatics tool; and a fixed payment of 350 GBP (560 USD; 403 EUR) up front and a small payment of 15 GBP (24 USD; 17 EUR) for each patient reviewed in the 12 months of the intervention. We hypothesise that the DQIP intervention will reduce a composite of nine previously validated measures of high-risk prescribing. Due to the nature of the intervention, it is not possible to blind practices, the core research team, or the data analyst. However, outcome assessment is entirely objective and automated. There will additionally be a process and economic evaluation alongside the main trial.

Discussion

The DQIP intervention is an example of a potentially sustainable safety improvement intervention that builds on the existing National Health Service IT-infrastructure to facilitate systematic management of high-risk prescribing by existing practice staff. Although the focus in this trial is on Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets, we anticipate that the tested intervention would be generalisable to other types of prescribing if shown to be effective.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, dossier number: NCT01425502

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Dreischulte et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirmohamed M: Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2006, 63:136-147.
• [2]Pirmohamed MJ, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM: Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004, 329:15-19.
• [3]Howard R, Avery A, Bissell P: Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care 2007, 17:109-116.
• [4]Hearnshaw HM, Harker RM, Cheater FM, Baker RH, Grimshaw GM: Expert consensus on the desirable characteristics of review criteria for improvement of health care quality. Quality in Health Care 2001, 10:173-178.
• [5]Dreischulte T, Grant A, McCowan C, McAnaw J, Guthrie B: Quality and safety of medication use in primary care: Consensus validation of a new set of explicit medication assessment criteria and prioritisation of topics for improvement. BMC Clinical Pharmacology 2012, 12(1):5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Guthrie B, McCowan C, Davey P, Simpson CR, Dreischulte T, Barnett K: High risk prescribing in primary care patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events: cross sectional population database analysis in Scottish general practice. BMJ 2011, 342:d3514.
• [7]Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman A: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006.
• [8]O'Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, Oxman AD, Odgaard-Jensen J, Kristoffersen DT, Forsetlund L, Bainbridge D, Freemantle N, Davis D, et al.: Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007.
• [9]Renders C, Valk G, Griffin S, Wagner E, Van Eijk J, Assendelft W: Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2001, 24:1821-1833.
• [10]Royal S, Smeaton L, Avery AJ, Hurwitz B, Sheikh A: Interventions in primary care to reduce medication related adverse events and hospital admissions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2006, 15:23-31.
• [11]Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB: BEME Guide 7: Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance. Medical Teacher 2006, 28(2):117-128.
• [12]O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, Wolf F, Davis DA, Herrin J: Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. 2000. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001 (2):CD003030.
• [13]Bennett J, Glasziou P: Computerised reminders and feedback in medication management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Med J Aust 2003, 178:217-222.
• [14]Hunt D, Haynes R, Hanna S, Smith K: Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998, 280:1339-1346.
• [15]Kawamoto K, Houlihan C, Balas E, Lobach D: Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005, 330:765.
• [16]Avery A, Rodgers S, Cantrill J, Armstrong S, Elliott R, Howard R, Kendrick D, Morris C, Murray S, Prescott R, et al.: Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices. Trials 2009, 10:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Brown C, Lilford R: The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2006, 6:54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Hussey MA, Hughes JP: Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2007, 28:182-191.
• [19]Freemantle N, Nazareth I, Eccles M, Wood J, Haines A: A randomised controlled trial of the effect of educational outreach by community pharmacists on prescribing in UK general practice. British Journal of General Practice 2002, 2002(52):290-295. [Erratum appears in Br J Gen Pract: Sep;52(482):767]
• [20]Avery A, Rodgers S: The PINCER trial ('A cluster randomised trial to determine the effectiveness, costs/benefits and acceptability of a pharmacist-led, IT-based intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important instances of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general practice'): final report. University of Nottingham: Nottingham; 2010.
• [21]McDonald R, Harrison S, Checkland K, Campbell SM, Roland M: Impact of financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study. BMJ 2007, 334:1357.
• [22]Checkland K, Harrison S, McDonald R, Grant S, Campbell S, Guthrie B: Biomedicine, holism and general medical practice: responses to the 2004 General Practitioner contract. Sociology of Health and Illness 2008, 30:788-803.
• [23]Huby G, Guthrie B, Grant S, Watkins F, Checkland K, McDonald R, Davies H: Whither British general practice after the 2004 GMS contract?: Stories and realities of change in four UK general practices. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 2008, 22:63-78.
• [24]Grant S, Huby G, Watkins F, Checkland K, McDonald R, Davies H, Guthrie B: The impact of pay-for-performance on professional boundaries in UK general practice: an ethnographic study. Sociology of Health and Illness 2009, 31:229-245.
• [25]Holland R, Desborough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK: Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007, 65:303-316.