Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Aug 3;17(1):386.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1513-z.

A process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care (OPTI-SCRIPT study)

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care (OPTI-SCRIPT study)

Barbara Clyne et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: The OPTI-SCRIPT cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a three-phase multifaceted intervention including academic detailing with a pharmacist, GP-led medicines reviews, supported by web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, and tailored patient information leaflets, was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in Irish primary care. We report a process evaluation exploring the implementation of the intervention, the experiences of those participating in the study and lessons for future implementation.

Methods: The OPTI-SCRIPT trial included 21 GP practices and 196 patients. The process evaluation used mixed methods. Quantitative data were collected from all GP practices and semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from intervention and control groups, and a purposive sample of patients from the intervention group. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis.

Results: Despite receiving a standardised academic detailing session, intervention delivery varied among GP practices. Just over 70 % of practices completed medicines review as recommended with the patient present. Only single-handed practices conducted reviews without patients present, highlighting the influence of practice characteristics and resources on variation. Medications were more likely to be completely stopped or switched to another more appropriate medication when reviews were conducted with patients present. The patient information leaflets were not used by any of the intervention practices. Both GP (32 %) and patient (40 %) recruitment rates were modest. For those who did participate, overall, the experience was positively viewed, with GPs and patients referring to the value of medication reviews to improve prescribing and reduce unnecessary medications. Lack of time in busy GP practices and remuneration were identified as organisational barriers to future implementation.

Conclusions: The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was positively viewed by both GPs and patients, both of whom valued the study's objectives. Patient information leaflets were not a successful component of the intervention. Academic detailing and medication reviews are important components in changing PIP, and having patients present during the review process seems to be a more effective approach for decreasing PIP.

Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007 . Registered on 21 March 2012.

Keywords: Cluster randomised controlled trial; Potentially inappropriate prescribing; Primary care; Process evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of practices and patients through the study. *Eligibility fraction: Proportion of potential participants who undergo screening and are eligible to enrol. ‘Recruitment fraction: Proportion of potential participants who actually enrol in the RCT. ^Enrolment fraction: Proportion of people who are eligible for participation and who actually enrol in the RCT. ~Number of patients needed to be screened: Number of patients screened in order to randomise one participant (1/recruitment fraction). Source: adapted from Gross et al. 2002 [50]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Time (weeks) from academic detailing to intervention practices completing all medicines reviews
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of changes to PIP drugs during medicines reviews conducted with and without patients present
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Patient identification and recruitment process

References

    1. O' Mahony D, Gallagher PF. Inappropriate prescribing in the older population: need for new criteria. Age Ageing. 2008;37(2):138–41. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm189. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Opondo D, Eslami S, Visscher S, Rooij S, Verheij R, Korevaar J, et al. Inappropriateness of medication prescriptions to elderly patients in the primary care setting: a systematic peview. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e43617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043617. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tommelein E, Mehuys E, Petrovic M, Somers A, Colin P, Boussery K. Potentially inappropriate prescribing in community-dwelling older people across Europe: a systematic literature review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(12):1415–27. doi: 10.1007/s00228-015-1954-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hedna K, Hakkarainen KM, Gyllensten H, Jonsson AK, Petzold M, Hagg S. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions in the elderly: a population-based study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(12):1525–33. doi: 10.1007/s00228-015-1950-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cahir C, Bennett K, Teljeur C, Fahey T. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse health outcomes in community dwelling older patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(1):201–10. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12161. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources