Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial: designing the intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705)

Karen N Barnett, Marion Bennie, Shaun Treweek, Christopher Robertson, Dennis J Petrie, Lewis D Ritchie, Bruce Guthrie, Karen N Barnett, Marion Bennie, Shaun Treweek, Christopher Robertson, Dennis J Petrie, Lewis D Ritchie, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract

Background: High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions have small/moderate effects on clinical practice, but few trials explicitly compare different forms of feedback. There is growing recognition that intervention development should be theory-informed, and that comprehensive reporting of intervention design is required by potential users of trial findings. The paper describes intervention development for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study, a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial in 262 Scottish general practices.

Methods: The NHS chose to implement a feedback intervention to utilise a new resource, new Prescribing Information System (newPIS). The development phase required selection of high-risk prescribing outcome measures and design of intervention components: (1) educational material (the usual care comparison), (2) feedback of practice rates of high-risk prescribing received by both intervention arms and (3) a theory-informed behaviour change component to be received by one intervention arm. Outcome measures, educational material and feedback design, were developed with a National Health Service Advisory Group. The behaviour change component was informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Action Process Approach. A focus group elicitation study and an email Delphi study with general practitioners (GPs) identified key attitudes and barriers of responding to the prescribing feedback. Behaviour change techniques were mapped to the psychological constructs, and the content was informed by the results of the elicitation and Delphi study.

Results: Six high-risk prescribing measures were selected in a consensus process based on importance and feasibility. Educational material and feedback design were based on current NHS Scotland practice and Advisory Group recommendations. The behaviour change component was resource constrained in development, mirroring what is feasible in an NHS context. Four behaviour change interventions were developed and embedded in five quarterly rounds of feedback targeting attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and action planning (2×).

Conclusions: The paper describes a process which is feasible to use in the resource-constrained environment of NHS-led intervention development and documents the intervention to make its design and implementation explicit to potential users of the trial findings.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01602705.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety trial design.

References

    1. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15.
    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;379:1310–1319. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5.
    1. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirmohamed M. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:136–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x.
    1. Higashi T, Shekelle PG, Solomon DH, Knight EL, Roth C, Chang JT, Kamberg CJ, MacLean CH, Young RT, Adams J, Reuben DB, Avorn J, Wenger NS. The quality of pharmacologic care for vulnerable older patients. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:714–720. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-9-200405040-00011.
    1. American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert P. Fick D, Semla T, Beizer J, Brandt N, Dombrowski R, DuBeau CE, Flanigan N, Hanlon J, Hollman P, Linnebur S, Nau D, Rehm B, Sandhu S, Steinman M. American Geriatrics Society updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:616–631. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03923.x.
    1. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade WE, Waller JL, Maclean JR, Beers MH. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2716–2724. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.22.2716.
    1. Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions): application to acutely ill elderly patients and comparison with Beers’ criteria. Age & Ageing. 2008;37:673–679. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn197.
    1. Avery AJ, Dex GM, Mulvaney C, Serumaga B, Spencer R, Lester HE, Campbell SM. Development of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs using the RAND Appropriateness Method. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61:e526–e536. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X588501.
    1. Dreischulte T, Grant AM, McCowan C, McAnaw JJ, Guthrie B. 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. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2012;12:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6904-12-5.
    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. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2011;342:d3514. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3514.
    1. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD000259.
    1. Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R. What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:50. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-50.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
    1. Excellence. NIfHaC . Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels (Public Health Guidance 6) London: NICE; 2007.
    1. French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, McKenzie JE, Francis JJ, Michie S, Buchbinder R, Schattner P, Spike N, Grimshaw JM. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:38–54. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A, Psychological Theory Group Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale. 2008;57:660–680. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x.
    1. Guthrie B, Treweek S, Petrie D, Barnett K, Ritchie LD, Robertson C, Bennie M. Protocol for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data. BMJ Open. 2012;2:1–10. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002359.
    1. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Social cognition models and health behaviour: a structured review. Psychol Health. 2000;15:173–189. doi: 10.1080/08870440008400299.
    1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
    1. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11:87–98. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87.
    1. Hausenblas HA, Carron AV, Mack DE. Application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1997;19:36–51.
    1. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Kaner EFS, Smith L, Bonetti D. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. Man Health Serv Res. 2004;2010:2–12.
    1. Sheeran P, Orbell S. Do intentions predict condom use? Meta-analysis and examination of six moderator variables. Br J Soc Psychol. 1998;37(Pt 2):231–250. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01167.x.
    1. Schwarzer R. Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action. Washington, DC, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp; 1992. pp. 217–243.
    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 medical care: The DQIP study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–13. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-24.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Grp C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:834–840. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.
    1. Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–6. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-40.
    1. Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8:1–5. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-52.
    1. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Sci. 2010;5:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-14.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj