Factors affecting feasibility and acceptability of a practice-based educational intervention to support evidence-based prescribing: a qualitative study

University of Bristol, Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Family Practice (Impact Factor: 1.84). 01/2005; 21(6):661-9. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh614
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Inappropriate and costly GP prescribing is a major problem facing Primary Care Trusts. Educational outreach into practices, alongside other measures, such as audit and feedback, have the potential to enable GP prescribing to become more evidence based. High GP prescribing costs are associated with GPs who see drug company representatives; tend to end consultations with prescriptions; and 'try out' new drugs on an 'ad hoc basis' and use this as evidence of the drug's effect. An educational intervention called 'reflective practice' was developed to meet these and other educational needs. The design of the intervention was informed by studies that have identified the pre-requisites of successful behaviour change in general practice.
The study investigated the following: (i) Is it feasible for GPs to attend the sessions included in the educational intervention? (ii) Is the intervention acceptable to the participants and the session facilitators? (iii) What are the barriers to the group educational processes, and how can these be overcome?
Four practices were recruited in South West England, all of them experiencing problems with prescribing appropriateness and cost. Reflective practice sessions (including a video-taped scenario) were run in each of these practices and qualitative methods were used to explore the complex attitudes and behaviour of the participants. A researcher observed and audio-taped sessions in each practice. At the end of the programme, a sample of doctors and all the facilitators were interviewed about their experiences. The recorded data were transcribed and analysed using standard qualitative methods.
The doctors in the largest partnerships were those who had the greatest difficulty in attending the sessions. Elsewhere, doctors were also reluctant to become involved because of previous experience of top-down managerial initiatives about prescribing quality. Facilitators came from a broad range of professional backgrounds. While knowledge of prescribed drug management issues was important, the professional background of the facilitator was less important than group facilitation skills in creating a group process which participating GPs found satisfactory. The video-taped scenario was found to be useful to set the scene for the discussion. Preserving the anonymity of responses of the GPs in the initial stages of the sessions was important in ensuring honesty in the discussion. Reaching a consensus on management of common conditions was sometimes difficult, partly because the use of the term 'best buy' implies economic pressures, rather than benefits to patients, and partly because of the value with which GPs regard the concept of clinical autonomy. 'Reflective Practice' appeared to have the potential to make GPs aware of the link to be made between their clinical management decisions and the evidence provided by the British National Formulary and Clinical Evidence.
The study indicates the importance of preparing the practice adequately, including providing protected time for all GPs to attend the educational intervention. Scenarios and the structure of the sessions need to make more explicit the links between everyday practice and published evidence of effectiveness. Emphasis on cost-effectiveness may be counterproductive and wider benefits need to be emphasized. We have also identified the skill profile of the facilitator role. Our study indicates a need for a clearer understanding of GPs' perception of clinical autonomy and how this conflicts with the goal of agreement on practice guidelines for treatment. The intervention is now ripe for further development, perhaps by integrating it with other interventions to change professional behaviour. The improved intervention should then be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Drug therapy in primary care is a challenge for general practitioners (GPs) and the prescribing decision is influenced by several factors. GPs obtain drug information in different ways, from evidence-based sources, their own or others¿ experiences, or interactions with opinion makers, patients or colleagues. The need for objective drug information sources instead of drug industry-provided information has led to the establishment of local drug and therapeutic committees. They annually produce and implement local treatment guidelines in order to promote rational drug use. This study describes Swedish GPs¿ attitudes towards locally developed evidence-based treatment guidelines.Methods Three focus group interviews were performed with a total of 17 GPs working at both public and private primary health care centres in Skåne in southern Sweden. Transcripts were analysed by conventional content analysis. Codes, categories and themes were derived from data during the analysis.ResultsWe found two main themes: GP-related influencing factors and External influencing factors. The first theme emerged when we put together four main categories: Expectations and perceptions about existing local guidelines, Knowledge about evidence-based prescribing, Trust in development of guidelines, and Beliefs about adherence to guidelines. The second theme included the categories Patient-related aspects, Drug industry-related aspects, and Health economic aspects. The time-saving aspect, trust in evidence-based market-neutral guidelines and patient safety were described as key motivating factors for adherence. Patient safety was reported to be more important than adherence to guidelines or maintaining a good patient-doctor relationship. Cost containment was perceived both as a motivating factor and a barrier for adherence to guidelines. GPs expressed concerns about difficulties with adherence to guidelines when managing patients with drugs from other prescribers. GPs experienced a lack of time to self-inform and difficulties managing direct-to-consumer drug industry information.Conclusions Patient safety, trust in development of evidence-based recommendations, the patient-doctor encounter and cost containment were found to be key factors in GPs¿ prescribing. Future studies should explore the need for transparency in forming and implementing guidelines, which might potentially increase adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines in primary care.
    BMC Family Practice 12/2014; 15(1):199. DOI:10.1186/s12875-014-0199-0 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To explore the implementation of CATCH-IT (Competent Adulthood Transition with Cognitive-behavioral Humanistic and Interpersonal Training), an Internet-based depression intervention program in 12 primary care sites, occurring as part of a randomized clinical trial comparing 2 versions of the intervention (motivational interview + Internet program versus brief advice + Internet program) in 83 adolescents aged 14 to 21 years recruited from February 1, 2007, to November 31, 2007. Method: The CATCH-IT intervention model consists of primary care screening to assess risk, a primary care physician interview to encourage participation, and 14 online modules of Internet training to teach adolescents how to reduce behaviors that increase vulnerability to depressive disorders. Specifically, we evaluated this program from both a management/organizational behavioral perspective (provider attitudes and demonstrated competence) and a clinical outcomes perspective (depressed mood scores) using the RE-AIM model (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the intervention). Results: While results varied by clinic, overall, clinics demonstrated satisfactory reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the CATCH-IT depression prevention program. Measures of program implementation and management predicted clinical outcomes at practices in exploratory analyses. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary approaches may be essential to evaluating the impact of complex interventions to prevent depression in community settings. Primary care physicians and nurses can use Internet-based programs to create a feasible and cost-effective model for the prevention of mental disorders in adolescents in primary care settings. Trial Registration: identifiers: NCT00152529 and NCT00145912.
    01/2013; 15(6). DOI:10.4088/PCC.10m01065
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Danish health care sector is reorganising based on disease management programmes designed to secure integrated and high quality chronic care across hospitals, general practitioners and municipalities. The disease management programmes assign a central role to general practice; and in the Capital Region of Denmark a facilitator-based intervention was undertaken to support the implementation of the programmes in general practice. The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of this semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention. The study was a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention group was offered three one-hour visits by a facilitator. The intervention was semi-tailored to the perceived needs as defined by each general practice, and the practices could choose from a list of possible topics. The control group was a delayed intervention group. The primary outcome was change in the number of annual chronic disease check-ups. Secondary outcomes were: changes in the number of annual check-ups for type 2 diabetes (DM2) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); changes in the number of spirometry tests, changes in the use of ICPC diagnosis coding and patient stratification; sign-up for a software program for patient overview; and reduction in number of practices with few annual chronic disease check-ups. We randomised 189 general practices: 96 practices were allocated to the intervention group and 93 to the delayed intervention group. For the primary outcome, 94 and 89 practices were analysed. Almost every outcome improved from baseline to follow-up in both allocation groups. At follow-up there was no difference between allocation groups for the primary outcome (p = 0.1639). However, some secondary outcomes favoured the intervention: a higher reported use of ICPC diagnosis coding for DM2 and COPD (p = 0.0050, p = 0.0243 respectively), stratification for COPD (p = 0.0185) and a faster initial sign-up rate for the software program. The mixed results from this study indicate that a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention of relatively low intensity is unlikely to add substantially to the implementation of disease management programmes for DM2 and COPD in a context marked by important concurrent initiatives (including financial incentives and mandatory registry participation) aimed at moving all practices towards changes in chronic care.Trial registration: NCT01297075.
    BMC Family Practice 04/2014; 15(1):65. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-15-65 · 1.74 Impact Factor