Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 80–84 | Cite as

Prescription data as a tool in pharmacotherapy audit (I) general considerations

  • C.S. de Vries
  • ThFJ de Tromp
  • L.T.W. de Jong‐van den Berg
  • W. Blijleven
Article

Abstract

This article discusses how prescription data that are available from pharmacies can be used as a tool to support the improvement of prescribing behaviour. For the optimal use of prescription data in pharmacotherapeutic audit, the specific aim of the audit meeting must be clear. Next, appropriate measures (quality of drug choice, volume, cost) have to be selected for the presentation and discussion of prescribing. For several aims of audit meetings, suggestions for adequate measures are given. For each stage of behavioural change the article describes why and how prescription data can provide a useful contribution. Finally, recommendations are given regarding prerequisites for the optimal use of prescription data. Important factors are that the prescription data should sufficiently cover the physicians' patient population, information regarding the extent of repeat prescribing is needed, and the prescribing of drugs with multiple indications can cause difficulties with the interpretation of the graphs. With this information in mind, feedback on prescribing can be tailored to the audit groups' needs and targeted to the intervention that is pursued.

Feedback Prescription data Audit Prescribing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schaffner W, Ray WA, Federspiel CF, Miller WO. Improving antibiotic prescribing in office practice. A controlled trial of three educational methods. JAMA 1983;250:1728-32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart Brown S, Surender R, Bradlow J, Coulter A, Doll H. General practice fundholding: effects on prescribing habits three years on. BMJ 1995;311:1543-7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Managed Care picking up in New Zealand. Scrip 1995 May 30:16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schulenburg JM, Graf VD. The German health care system at the crossroads. Health Econ 1994;3:301-4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1990. Section 1927 GH of the Social Security Act (public law 101508).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malcolm-L. Radical reforms for primary health care in New Zealand. World-Health-Forum 1995;16(3):283-6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Potts M, Denny C, Morgan PP, Cohen L, Gossel TA. Off the prescription pad and over the counter: the trend toward drug deregulation grows. Drug Saf 1991;13(2):200-15.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coulter A. Shifting the balance from secondary to primary care-Needs investment and cultural change. BMJ 1995;311:1447-8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Editorial. Over-the-counter drugs. Lancet 1994;343:1374-5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson J, Harris CM, England G, et al. Treating asthma. Prescription Pricing Authority aims to promote high quality prescribing. BMJ 1995;310:254.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson-RP; Buchan-I; Walley-T. Alterations in prescribing by general practitioner fundholders: an observational study. BMJ 1995;311(7016): 1347-50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bateman-DN; Campbell-M; Donaldson-LJ; Roberts-SJ; Smith-JM. A prescribing incentive scheme for non-fundholding general practices: an observational study. BMJ 1996;313(7056): 535-8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soumerai SB, Mclaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Quart 1989;67:268-317.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mugford M, Banfield P, O'Hanlon M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ 1993;303:398-402.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grimshaw J, Freemantle N, Wallace S, et al. Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Quality in Health Care 1995;4:55-64.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P. Impact of feedback and peer review on prescribing.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris CM. Better feedback on prescribing for general practitioners (editorial). BMJ 1994;309:356.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brailey A. Influencing prescribing using SPA data. Scottish Centre for Post Qualification Pharmaceutical Evaluation & Pharmacy Practice Division; J&E Reid, Glasgow 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGavock H. Rational discussion as a guide to more costeffective and scientific prescribing in general practice: 15 years of experience in Northern Ireland. In: Kochen MM, ed. Rational Pharmacotherapy in General Practice. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1991;186-200.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    May F, Gilbert A, Hurley E, McNeece J, Rowett D. A drug and therapeutics information service for community medical practitioners. Australian Prescriber 1993;16:49-51.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. N Engl J Med 1983;308:1457-63.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Economic and policy analysis of university based drug-detailing. Med Care 1986;24,313-31.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of education outreach (academic detailing) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA 1990;253:549-56.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neu HC. Urinary tract infections. Am J Med 1992;92(4a):36-70.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Purves IN. The paperless general practice. BMJ 1996;312:1112-3.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stokx LJ, Gloerich ABM, Kersten TJJMT. Kostenbesparing door kwaliteitsbevordering. [Cost savings resulting from quality improvement]. Utrecht: Nederlands Instituut voor onderzoek van de eerstelijnsgezondheidszorg. Stokx LJ, Gloerich ABM, Kersten TJJMT. Kostenbesparing door kwaliteitsbevordering: evaluatie van een programma van deskundigheidsbevordering voor huisartsen [Cost reduction through quality improvement: evaluation of a programme of expertise advancement for general practitioners]. Utrecht: NIVEL 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haagsma CJ, Gribnau FWJ, Bruyns E. De invloed van opname op een geriatrische afdeling van een algemeen ziekenuis op het geneesmiddelengebruik van bejaarden. [The influence of admission to a general hospital's geriatrics department on drug use by the elderly]. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1989;133(47):2341-4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koopmans RTMC, De Vaan HHC, Van den Hoogen HJM, Gribnau-FWJ, Hekster YA, Van Wheel C. Afname van geneesmiddelengebruik na opname in een psychogeriatrisch verpleegtehuis: stoppen is mogelijk [Reduction of drug intake following admission to a psychogeriatric nursing home: discontinuation is possible]. Ned Tijdschr Gen 1993;137:1049-54.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alexander N, Goodwin JS, Currei C. Comparison of admission and discharge medication in two geriatric populations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blom AThG, De Bruijn JCMJ, De Jong JGAM. Verspilling? Wel voorgeschreven maar niet gebruikte geneesmiddelen. [Waste? Drugs which have been prescribed but not consumed]. Utrecht, Utrecht University 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bogle SM, Harris CM. Measuring prescribing: the shortcomings of the item. BMJ 1994;308:637-40.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Anatomical Therapeutical Chemical (ATC) classification index including defined daily doses (DDDs) for plain substances. Oslo: WHO, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wertheimer AI. The defined daily dose system (DDD) for drug utilization review. Hospital pharmacy 1986;21:233-58.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Merlo J, Wessling A, Melander A. Comparison of dose standard units for drug utilisation studies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1996;50:27-30.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bloor K, Freemantle N. Lessons from international experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure II: influencing doctors. BMJ 1996;312:1525-7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lloyd DCEF, Harris CM, Roberts DJ. Specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing units (STAR-PU's): weightings for analysing general practices prescribing in England. BMJ 1995;311:991-4.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whynes DK, Baines DL, Tolley KH. Explaining variations in general practice prescribing costs per ASTRO-PU (age, sex, and temporary resident originated prescribing unit). BMJ 1996;312:488-9.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McGuire WJ. Attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindsay G, Aronson E (Eds). The handbook of social psychology, volume 2, pp 233-346. New York: Random House 1985.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lamberts H, Wood M. International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Vries CS, Van Diepen NM, Tromp TFJ, De Jong-van den Berg LTW. Auditing GPs prescribing habits: cardiovascular prescribing frequently continues medication initiated by specialists. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1996;50:349-52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • C.S. de Vries
  • ThFJ de Tromp
  • L.T.W. de Jong‐van den Berg
  • W. Blijleven

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options