Process evaluation of the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) trial: active and less active ingredients of a multi-component complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Two to 4% of emergency hospital admissions are caused by preventable adverse drug events. The estimated costs of such avoidable admissions in England were £530 million in 2015. The data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention was designed to prompt review of patients vulnerable from currently prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and anti-platelets and was found to be effective at reducing this prescribing. A process evaluation was conducted parallel to the trial, and this paper reports the analysis which aimed to explore response to the intervention delivered to clusters in relation to participants' perceptions about which intervention elements were active in changing their practice. METHODS: Data generation was by in-depth interview with key staff exploring participant's perceptions of the intervention components. Analysis was iterative using the framework technique and drawing on normalisation process theory. RESULTS: All the primary components of the intervention were perceived as active, but at different stages of implementation: financial incentives primarily supported recruitment; education motivated the GPs to initiate implementation; the informatics tool facilitated sustained implementation. Participants perceived the primary components as interdependent. Intervention subcomponents also varied in whether and when they were active. For example, run charts providing feedback of change in prescribing over time were ignored in the informatics tool, but were motivating in some practices in the regular e-mailed newsletter. The high-risk NSAID and anti-platelet prescribing targeted was accepted as important by all interviewees, and this shared understanding was a key wider context underlying intervention effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This was a novel use of process evaluation data which examined whether and how the individual intervention components were effective from the perspective of the professionals delivering changed care to patients. These findings are important for reproducibility and roll-out of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01425502 .

Safer Prescribing--A Trial of Education, Informatics, and Financial Incentives.

BACKGROUND: High-risk prescribing and preventable drug-related complications are common in primary care. We evaluated whether the rates of high-risk prescribing by primary care clinicians and the related clinical outcomes would be reduced by a complex intervention. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted in Tayside, Scotland, we randomly assigned participating primary care practices to various start dates for a 48-week intervention comprising professional education, informatics to facilitate review, and financial incentives for practices to review patients' charts to assess appropriateness. The primary outcome was patient-level exposure to any of nine measures of high-risk prescribing of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or selected antiplatelet agents (e.g., NSAID prescription in a patient with chronic kidney disease or coprescription of an NSAID and an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). Prespecified secondary outcomes included the incidence of related hospital admissions. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle, with the use of mixed-effect models to account for clustering in the data. RESULTS: A total of 34 practices underwent randomization, 33 of which completed the study. Data were analyzed for 33,334 patients at risk at one or more points in the preintervention period and for 33,060 at risk at one or more points in the intervention period. Targeted high-risk prescribing was significantly reduced, from a rate of 3.7% (1102 of 29,537 patients at risk) immediately before the intervention to 2.2% (674 of 30,187) at the end of the intervention (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of hospital admissions for gastrointestinal ulcer or bleeding was significantly reduced from the preintervention period to the intervention period (from 55.7 to 37.0 admissions per 10,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P=0.002), as was the rate of admissions for heart failure (from 707.7 to 513.5 admissions per 10,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.95; P=0.02), but admissions for acute kidney injury were not (101.9 and 86.0 admissions per 10,000 person-years, respectively; rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.09; P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention combining professional education, informatics, and financial incentives reduced the rate of high-risk prescribing of antiplatelet medications and NSAIDs and may have improved clinical outcomes. (Funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502.).

Logistic, ethical, and political dimensions of stepped wedge trials: critical review and case studies.

BACKGROUND: Three arguments are usually invoked in favour of stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trials: the logistic convenience of implementing an intervention in phases, the ethical benefit of providing the intervention to all clusters, and the potential to enhance the social acceptability of cluster randomised controlled trials. Are these alleged benefits real? We explored the logistic, ethical, and political dimensions of stepped wedge trials using case studies of six recent evaluations. METHODS: We identified completed or ongoing stepped wedge evaluations using two systematic reviews. We then purposively selected six with a focus on public health in high, middle, and low-income settings. We interviewed their authors about the logistic, ethical, and social issues faced by their teams. Two authors reviewed interview transcripts, identified emerging issues through qualitative thematic analysis, reflected upon them in the context of the literature, and invited all participants to co-author the manuscript. RESULTS: Our analysis raises three main points. First, the phased implementation of interventions can alleviate problems linked to simultaneous roll-out, but also brings new challenges. Issues to consider include the feasibility of organising intervention activities according to a randomised sequence, estimating time lags in implementation and effects, and accommodating policy changes during the trial period. Second, stepped wedge trials, like parallel cluster trials, require equipoise: without it, randomising participants to a control condition, even for a short time, remains problematic. In stepped wedge trials, equipoise is likely to lie in the degree of effect, effectiveness in a specific operational milieu, and the balance of benefit and harm, including the social value of better evaluation. Third, the strongest arguments for a stepped wedge design are logistic and political rather than ethical. The design is advantageous when simultaneous roll-out is impractical and when it increases the acceptability of using counterfactuals. CONCLUSIONS: The logistic convenience of phased implementation is context-dependent, and may be vitiated by the additional requirements of phasing. The potential for stepped wedge trials to enhance the social acceptability of cluster randomised trials is real, but their ethical legitimacy still rests on demonstrating equipoise and its configuration for each research question and setting.

Medication assessment tool to detect care issues from routine data: a pilot study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Medication assessment tools (MATs) may be implemented in routine electronic data sources in order to identify patients with opportunities for optimisation of medication therapy management (MTM) and follow-up by a multi-disciplinary team. OBJECTIVE: (1) To demonstrate the use of a MAT for cardiovascular conditions (MAT CVC) as a means of profiling potential opportunities for MTM optimisation in primary care and (2) to assess the performance of MAT CVC in identifying actual opportunities for better care. SETTING: Members of a pharmacotherapy discussion group, i.e. two single-handed general practitioners (GPs), three GP partners, and community pharmacists (CPs) from each of two community pharmacies, in a rural part of the Netherlands. METHODS: MAT CVC comprises 21 medication assessment criteria, each of which is designed to detect a specific care issue and to check whether it is 'addressed' by provision of guideline recommended care or 'open' in the presence ('open explained') or absence ('open unexplained') of pre-specified explanations for guideline deviations. (1) Relevant data was extracted from linked GP and CP electronic records and MAT CVC assessment was conducted to profile the population of CVC patients registered with both, participating CPs and GPs, in terms of 'open unexplained' care issues. (2) A purposive sample of patients with 'open unexplained' care issues was reviewed by each patient's GP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and proportion of 'open unexplained' care issues per MAT CVC criterion and per patient. The number of patients with MAT CVC detected 'open unexplained' care issues to be reviewed (NNR) in order to identify one that requires changes in MTM. RESULTS: In 1,876 target group patients, MAT CVC identified 6,915 care issues, of which 2,770 (40.1 %) were 'open unexplained'. At population level, ten MAT CVC criteria had particularly high potential for quality improvement. At patient level, 1,277 (68.1 %) target group patients had at least one 'open unexplained' care issue. For patients with four or more 'open unexplained' care issues, the NNR was 2 (95 % CI 2-2). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates potential ways of using MA TCVC as a key component of a collaborative MTM system. Strategies that promote documentation and sharing of explanations for deviating from guideline recommendations may enhance the utility of the approach.

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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the problem of preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in primary care is a challenge for health care systems internationally. The increasing implementation of clinical information systems in the UK and internationally provide new opportunities to systematically identify patients at risk of PDRM for targeted medication review. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a set of explicit medication assessment criteria to identify patients with sub-optimally effective or high-risk medication use from electronic medical records and (2) to identify medication use topics that are perceived by UK primary care clinicians to be priorities for quality and safety improvement initiatives. METHODS: For objective (1), a 2-round consensus process based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was conducted, in which candidate criteria were identified from the literature and scored by a panel of 10 experts for 'appropriateness' and 'necessity'. A set of final criteria was generated from candidates accepted at each level. For objective (2), thematically related final criteria were clustered into 'topics', from which a panel of 26 UK primary care clinicians identified priorities for quality improvement in a 2-round Delphi exercise. RESULTS: (1) The RAM process yielded a final set of 176 medication assessment criteria organised under the domains 'quality' and 'safety', each classified as targeting 'appropriate/necessary to do' (quality) or 'inappropriate/necessary to avoid' (safety) medication use. Fifty-two final 'quality' assessment criteria target patients with unmet indications, sub-optimal selection or intensity of beneficial drug treatments. A total of 124 'safety' assessment criteria target patients with unmet needs for risk-mitigating agents, high-risk drug selection, excessive dose or duration, inconsistent monitoring or dosing instructions. (2) The UK Delphi panel identified 11 (23%) of 47 scored topics as 'high priority' for quality improvement initiatives in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The developed criteria set complements existing medication assessment instruments in that it is not limited to the elderly, can be implemented in electronic data sets and focuses on drug groups and conditions implicated in common and/or severe PDRM in primary care. Identified priorities for quality and safety improvement can guide the selection of targets for initiatives to address the PDRM problem in primary care.