Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data

Bruce Guthrie, S. Treweek, Dennis Petrie, Karen Barnett, Lewis Ritchie, Chris Robertson, Marion Bennie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback.
The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices.
The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications.
LanguageEnglish
Article numbere002359
Number of pages10
JournalBMJ Open
Volume2
Issue number6
Early online date7 Jan 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Drug Prescriptions
clopidogrel
Primary Health Care
Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety
Anticoagulants
Aspirin
Research Ethics
Medical Ethics
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Diuretics
General Practice
Sample Size
Antipsychotic Agents
Prescriptions
Publications
Biomedical Research
Health

Cite this

@article{4bf237dd1a3b4910b5fd19b7307ea6f4,
title = "Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data",
abstract = "High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94{\%} of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93{\%} power to detect a 25{\%} difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1{\%} to 4.5{\%}) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications.",
author = "Bruce Guthrie and S. Treweek and Dennis Petrie and Karen Barnett and Lewis Ritchie and Chris Robertson and Marion Bennie",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002359",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
number = "6",

}

Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study : a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data. / Guthrie, Bruce; Treweek, S.; Petrie, Dennis; Barnett, Karen; Ritchie, Lewis; Robertson, Chris; Bennie, Marion.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 2, No. 6, e002359, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study

T2 - BMJ Open

AU - Guthrie, Bruce

AU - Treweek, S.

AU - Petrie, Dennis

AU - Barnett, Karen

AU - Ritchie, Lewis

AU - Robertson, Chris

AU - Bennie, Marion

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications.

AB - High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873810854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002359

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002359

M3 - Article

VL - 2

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 6

M1 - e002359

ER -