Overprescribing of potentially harmful medication: an observational study in England's general practice.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of potentially harmful medication in UK general practice has a complex association with socioeconomic deprivation. AIM: To assess trends in general practice prescribing of five high-risk medications and their relationship to deprivation. DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted an observational study using general practice data from three English regions with varied socio-demographic factors: West Yorkshire and Harrogate (WY), Black Country and West Birmingham (BC), and Surrey and East Sussex (SE). METHOD: Practice-level prescribing data was obtained from 2016-2021 for five drug classes: opioids, hypnotics, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antibacterials. Prescribing trends were demonstrated using a linear model. RESULTS: Reduction in NSAID, Opioid, Hypnotic and Antibacterial prescriptions, and the increase in gabapentinoid prescriptions, were significant at each financial-year time period. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was positively associated with all drug classes except antibacterials, which showed a positive association when incorporating the interaction term between IMD and age.When adjusting for IMD and population, region was independently associated with prescribing rate. Compared to WY, IMD had a smaller association with prescribing in BC for NSAIDs (Coefficient -0.01578, P=0.004) and antibacterials (Coefficient -0.02769, P=0.007), whereas IMD had a greater association with prescribing in SE for NSAIDs (Coefficient 0.02443, P<.001), opioids (Coefficient 0.08919 p<.001), hypnotics (Coefficient 0.09038 p<.001), gabapentinoids (Coefficient 0.1095, P<.001) and antibacterials (Coefficient 0.01601, P=0.19). CONCLUSION: The association of socioeconomic deprivation with overprescribing of high-risk medication in general practice varies by region and drug type. Geographical location is associated with overprescribing, independent of socioeconomic status.

The effects of an evidence- and theory-informed feedback intervention on opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. An evidence-based bimonthly feedback intervention to reduce opioid prescribing was developed and implemented, targeting 316 general practices in West Yorkshire over 1 year. AIM: To understand how general practice staff received and responded to the feedback intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews, guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), of primary care healthcare professionals targeted by feedback. METHOD: Participants were purposively recruited according to baseline opioid prescribing levels and degree of change following feedback. Interview data were coded to NPT constructs, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 21 staff from 20 practices. Reducing opioid prescribing was recognised as a priority. While high achievers had clear structures for quality improvement, feedback encouraged some less structured practices to embed changes. The non-prescriptive nature of the feedback reports allowed practices to develop strategies consistent with their own ways of working and existing resources. Practice concerns were allayed by the credibility of the reports and positive experiences of reducing opioid prescribing. The scale, frequency, and duration of feedback may have ensured a good overall level of practice population reach. CONCLUSION: The intervention engaged general practice staff in change by targeting an issue of emerging concern, and allowing adaption to different ways of working. Practice efforts to reduce opioid prescribing were reinforced by regular feedback, credible comparative data showing progress, and shared experiences of patient benefit.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Development and feasibility testing of an education program to improve knowledge and self-care among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: There is a 70% higher age-adjusted incidence of heart failure (HF) among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, three times more hospitalisations and twice as many deaths as among non-Aboriginal people. There is a need to develop holistic yet individualised approaches in accord with the values of Aboriginal community health care to support patient education and self-care. The aim of this study was to re-design an existing HF educational resource (Fluid Watchers-Pacific Rim) to be culturally safe for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, working in collaboration with the local community, and to conduct feasibility testing. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases and utilised a mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative). Phase 1 used action research methods to develop a culturally safe electronic resource to be provided to Aboriginal HF patients via a tablet computer. An HF expert panel adapted the existing resource to ensure it was evidence-based and contained appropriate language and images that reflects Aboriginal culture. A stakeholder group (which included Aboriginal workers and HF patients, as well as researchers and clinicians) then reviewed the resources, and changes were made accordingly. In Phase 2, the new resource was tested on a sample of Aboriginal HF patients to assess feasibility and acceptability. Patient knowledge, satisfaction and self-care behaviours were measured using a before and after design with validated questionnaires. As this was a pilot test to determine feasibility, no statistical comparisons were made. RESULTS: Phase 1: Throughout the process of resource development, two main themes emerged from the stakeholder consultation. These were the importance of identity, meaning that it was important to ensure that the resource accurately reflected the local community, with the appropriate clothing, skin tone and voice. The resource was adapted to reflect this, and members of the local community voiced the recordings for the resource. The other theme was comprehension; images were important and all text was converted to the first person and used plain language. Phase 2: Five Aboriginal participants, mean age 61.6±10.0 years, with NYHA Class III and IV heart failure were enrolled. Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the resource (83.0%). HF knowledge (percentage of correct responses) increased from 48.0±6.7% to 58.0±9.7%, a 20.8% increase, and results of the self-care index indicated that the biggest change was in patient confidence for self-care, with a 95% increase in confidence score (46.7±16.0 to 91.1±11.5). Changes in management and maintenance scores varied between patients. CONCLUSIONS: By working in collaboration with HF experts, Aboriginal researchers and patients, a culturally safe HF resource has been developed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Engaging Aboriginal researchers, capacity-building, and being responsive to local systems and structures enabled this pilot study to be successfully completed with the Aboriginal community and positive participant feedback demonstrated that the methodology used in this study was appropriate and acceptable; participants were able to engage with willingness and confidence.