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 18:354:i4079.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4079.

Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial

Bruce Guthrie  1 , Kimberley Kavanagh  2 , Chris Robertson  2 , Karen Barnett  3 , Shaun Treweek  4 , Dennis Petrie  5 , Lewis Ritchie  6 , Marion Bennie  7
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial

Bruce Guthrie et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.

Design: Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

Setting and participants: 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.

Interventions: Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.

Results: In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.

Conclusions: Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work beyond the grant funding; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Trial profile. CHI=Community Health Index (NHS Scotland unique patient identifier). *Design was repeated cross sectional analysis of routine data from all patients, so all eligible patients were analysed
None
Fig 2 Change in composite high risk prescribing in three trial arms
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15-9. 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15 pmid:15231615. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J, et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1556-64. 10.1056/NEJMsa020703 pmid:12700376. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA 2003;289:1107-16. 10.1001/jama.289.9.1107 pmid:12622580. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, et al. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:136-47. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x pmid:16803468. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banerjee S. The use of antipsychotic medication for people with dementia: time for action.Department of Health, 2009.

Publication types

Associated data