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

Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Bruce Guthrie, Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract

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 .

Keywords: Family practice; General practice; Prescribing; Process evaluation; Quality and safety; Randomised controlled trials.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
DQIP process evaluation framework. (This paper is reporting column one, the intervention delivered to professionals)

References

    1. Howard R, Avery A, Bissell P. Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(2):109–116. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022681.
    1. Hakkarainen KM, Hedna K, Petzold M, Hagg S. Percentage of patients with preventable adverse drug reactions and preventability of adverse drug reactions—a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33236. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033236.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Costing statement: medicines optimisation—implementing the NICE guideline on medicines information (NG5). 2015. Available at . Accessed 5 Nov 2016.
    1. Institute for Health Care Informatics, IMS. Responsible use of medicines report. 2012. . Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
    1. Howard RL, Avery A, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirohamed M. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;63:136–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x.
    1. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalisation for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(21):2002–2012. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1103053.
    1. Leendertse AJ, Egberts ACG, Stoker LJ, van den Bent PM. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1890–1896.
    1. 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. Br Med J. 2011;342:d3514. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3514.
    1. Dreischulte T, Grant A, Donnan P, McCowan C, Davey P, Petrie D, Treweek S, Guthrie B. 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 care: the DQIP study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:24. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-24.
    1. Grant AM, Guthrie B, Dreischulte T. Developing a complex intervention to improve prescribing safety in primary care: mixed methods feasibility and optimisation pilot study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004153. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004153.
    1. Brown C, Lilford R. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54.
    1. Dreischulte T, Donnan P, Grant A, Hapca A, McCowan C, Guthrie B. Safer prescribing—a trial of education, informatics and financial incentives. New England J Med. 2016;374:1053–64. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1508955.
    1. Dopson S, Locock L, Chambers D, Gabbay J. Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the promoting action of clinical effectiveness programme. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6:23–31. doi: 10.1258/1355819011927161.
    1. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? Br Med J. 2008;336(7659):1472–1474. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, Lamb SE, Dixon-Woods M, McCulloch P, Wyatt JC, Chan A, Michie S. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Br Med J. 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. Medical Research Council . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008.
    1. Medical Research Council . Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. 2015.
    1. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-15.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalisation process theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. Grant A, Dreischulte T, Treweek S, Guthrie B. Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: data-driven quality improvement in primary care. Trials. 2012;13:154. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-154.
    1. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2015;42(5):533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
    1. Grant A, Sullivan F, Dowell J. An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices? Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):72. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-72.
    1. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co; 1967.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice, a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2003.
    1. Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, O’Brien MA, French SD, Young J, Odgaard-Jensen J. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(11):1534–1541. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2913-y.
    1. Guthrie B, Kavanagh K, Robertson C, Barnett K, Treweek S, Petrie D, Ritchie L, Bennie M. Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2016;354:i4079. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4079.
    1. Avery AJ, Rodgers S, Cantrill JA, Armstrong S, Cresswell K, Eden M, Elliott RA, Howard R, Kendrick D, Morris CJ, Prescott RJ, Swanwick G, Franklin M, Putman K, Boyd M, Sheikh A. A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1310–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5.
    1. Cresswell K, Sadler S, Rodgers S, Avery A, Cantrill J, Murray S, Sheikh A. An embedded longitudinal multi-faceted qualitative evaluation of a complex cluster randomized controlled trial aiming to reduce clinically important errors in medicines management in general practice. Trials. 2012;13(1):78. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-78.
    1. McCleary N, Duncan E, Stewart F, Francis J. Active ingredients are reported more often for pharmalogic than non-pharmalogic interventions: an illustrative review of reporting practices in titles and abstracts. Trials. 2013;14:146. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-146.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere