The journey to concordance for patients with hypertension: a qualitative study in primary care

Objective

We aimed to explore, using qualitative methods, the perspectives of patients with hypertension on issues relating to concordance in prescribing.

Method

This study took place in NHS general practices in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample of patients who had been prescribed anti-hypertensive medication for at least one year were invited to participate in focus groups or semi-structured interviews; data were analysed using constant comparison.

Main outcome measures

The perspectives of patients with hypertension on issues relating to concordance in prescribing.

Results

Twenty-five individuals participated in five focus groups; two participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants felt they could make valuable contributions to consultations regarding their management. They were prepared to negotiate with GPs regarding their medication, but most deferred to their doctor’s advice, perceiving doctors’ attitudes and time constraints as barriers to their greater involvement in concordant decision-making. They had concerns about taking anti-hypertensive drugs, were aware of lifestyle influences on hypertension and reported using personal strategies to facilitate adherence and reduce the need to take medication.

Conclusions

Participants indicated a willingness to be?involved in concordance in prescribing anti- hypertensive medication but needed health professionals to address their concerns and confusion about the nature of hypertension. These findings suggest that there is a need for doctors and other healthcare professionals with responsibility for prescribing to develop skills specifically to explore the beliefs and views underlying an individual’s medication use. Such skills may need to be developed through specific training programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.

     

The journey to concordance for patients with hypertension: a qualitative study in primary care

Objective We aimed to explore, using qualitative methods, the perspectives of patients with hypertension on issues relating to concordance in prescribing. Method This study took place in NHS general practices in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample of patients who had been prescribed anti-hypertensive medication for at least one year were invited to participate in focus groups or semi-structured interviews; data were analysed using constant comparison. Main outcome measures The perspectives of patients with hypertension on issues relating to concordance in prescribing. Results Twenty-five individuals participated in five focus groups; two participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants felt they could make valuable contributions to consultations regarding their management. They were prepared to negotiate with GPs regarding their medication, but most deferred to their doctor’s advice, perceiving doctors’ attitudes and time constraints as barriers to their greater involvement in concordant decision-making. They had concerns about taking anti-hypertensive drugs, were aware of lifestyle influences on hypertension and reported using personal strategies to facilitate adherence and reduce the need to take medication. Conclusions Participants indicated a willingness to be␣involved in concordance in prescribing anti- hypertensive medication but needed health professionals to address their concerns and confusion about the nature of hypertension. These findings suggest that there is a need for doctors and other healthcare professionals with responsibility for prescribing to develop skills specifically to explore the beliefs and views underlying an individual’s medication use. Such skills may need to be developed through specific training programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.     

Optimising antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Prudent antimicrobial prescribing in the community may help to prevent the relentless increase in resistance, highlighted worldwide by numerous parliamentary documents. Antibiotic guidance, developed by primary care professionals and disseminated locally with outreach workshops, helps to reduce the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Computerised guidance, audit of antibiotic use and restricted laboratory sensitivity reporting moves the prescriber towards the selection of recommended drugs. Educational campaigns and patient leaflets given at the consultation help to modify patients' expectations. Primary care physicians need to consider how much pharmaceutical representatives and free samples influence their prescribing. This multi-faceted approach needs to be backed up with a research programme developing the evidence base for management guidance of antimicrobial use in primary care.     

Laxative prescribing during pregnancy in primary care

□ Hormonal changes, mechanical pressure and concurrent medication all contribute to altered bowel habit during pregnancy □ It has been suggested that pregnant women are more likely to receive laxatives than the baseline population □ A retrospective case control study using a primary care prescribing database was undertaken to compare laxative prescribing before and during pregnancy with that in matched controls □ Prescribing rate of laxatives increased during pregnancy compared with before becoming pregnant but this was not different to controls □ Pregnant women were more likely to receive a laxative if they were using antibacterials, preparations for haemorrhoids or drugs for nausea and vertigo.     

Prevalence of inappropriate prescribing in primary care

Objective To describe the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing in primary care in Copenhagen County, according to the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and to identify the therapeutic areas most commonly involved. Setting A cross-sectional study was conducted among 212 elderly ( >65 years) polypharmacy patients (five or more different medications) listed to 41 general practitioners (GPs) in the County of Copenhagen. Method Patients exposed to polypharmacy were identified via the database recording the drug subsidy system of Danish pharmacies. For each patient, data were collected on subsidised medications prescribed over 3 months by the patients’ own GPs. The GPs were asked to provide baseline information regarding the patients’ medical history and detailed information regarding the subsidised and non-subsidised medications prescribed to the patients. A MAI was scored for medication prescribed to the patients. Topical, dermatological medications and medications not used regularly were excluded. Results 212 patients were prescribed 1621 medications by their GPs at baseline. In all, 640 (39.5%) of the medications had one or more inappropriate ratings in the 10 criteria making up the MAI. The main part of the patients (94.3%) had one or more inappropriate ratings among their medications. A total of 12.3% of the medications were rated as ‘not indicated’, 6% were rated as ‘ineffective’, 6.7% were given in an incorrect dose, 0.7% were prescribed with incorrect directions, 1.3% had impractical directions, 0.7% of the drugs had clinically significant drug–drug interactions, 8.6% had clinically significant drug–disease/condition interactions, 3.1% were unnecessary duplications, 16.5% were given in an unacceptable duration and 27.1% of the medications were not the least expensive alternative. The therapeutic groups most commonly involved in inappropriate prescribing were medications for treatment of peptic ulcer, cardiovascular medications, anti-inflammatory medications, antidepressants, hypnotics and anti-asthmatics. Conclusion The overall prescribing quality in primary care in Copenhagen County, Denmark is good. However, the majority of patients used one or more medications with inappropriate ratings. The inappropriate prescribing relates to specific therapeutic groups and criteria, which should be targeted in future interventions.     

Evaluation of antihypertensive drug prescribing in a primary care clinic

Although the National High Blood Pressure Education Program has been in existence since the early 1970's, reported evaluation of drug prescribing for ambulatory, hypertensive patients for conformance with the stepped-care approach and approved drug labeling is lacking in the literature. To study this, charts of hypertensive patients from a primary care clinic were retrospectively reviewed against explicit treatment criteria. It was found that nearly all the antihypertensive drug prescribing was in accord with the criteria, with the exception of the scheduling of return visits to the clinic and monitoring. The community pharmacist's role in improving patient monitoring is discussed.     

Exploring the causes of junior doctors' prescribing mistakes: a qualitative study

Aims

Prescribing errors are common and can be detrimental to patient care and costly. Junior doctors are more likely than consultants to make a prescribing error, yet there is only limited research into the causes of errors. The aim of this study was to explore the causes of prescribing mistakes made by doctors in their first year post graduation.

Methods

As part of the EQUIP study, interviews using the critical incident technique were carried out with 30 newly qualified doctors. Participants were asked to discuss in detail any prescribing errors they had made. Participants were purposely sampled across a range of medical schools (18) and hospitals (15). A constant comparison approach was taken to analysis and Reason''s model of accident causation was used to present the data.

Results

More than half the errors discussed were prescribing mistakes (errors due to the correct execution of an incorrect plan). Knowledge-based mistakes (KBMs) appeared to arise from poor knowledge of practical aspects of prescribing such as dosing, whereas rule-based mistakes (RBMs) resulted from inappropriate application of knowledge. Multiple error-producing and latent conditions were described by participants for RBMs and KBMs. Poor/absent senior support and a fear of appearing incompetent occurred with KBMs. Following erroneous routines or seniors'' orders were major contributory factors in RBMs.

Conclusions

Although individual factors such as knowledge and expertise played a role in prescribing mistakes, there were many perceived interrelated factors contributing to error. We conclude that multiple interventions are necessary to address these and further research is essential.