Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Sture Rognstad, Mette Brekke, Arne Fetveit, Ingvild Dalen and Jørund Straand
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (613): e554-e562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X670688
Sture Rognstad
Roles: Assistant professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mette Brekke
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Arne Fetveit
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingvild Dalen
Roles: Senior adviser
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jørund Straand
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Older patients are at particular risk for adverse drug reactions. In older people, interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) are considered important measures to minimise drug-related harm, especially in the general practice setting where most prescriptions for older patients are issued.

Aim To study the effects of a multifaceted educational intervention on GPs’ PIPs for older patients.

Design and setting This was a cluster randomised, educational intervention study in Norwegian general practice. Pre-study data were captured from January 2005 to December 2005 and post-study data from June 2006 to June 2007. The educational intervention was carried out from January 2006 to June 2006.

Method Eighty continuing medical education (CME) groups (465 GPs) were randomised to receive the educational intervention on GPs’ PIPs for older patients (41 CME groups; 256 GPs) or another educational intervention (39 CME groups; 209 GPs); these two groups acted as controls for each other. GPs’ prescription data from before and after the intervention were assessed against a list of 13 explicit PIP criteria for patients aged ≥70 years. In the CME groups, trained GPs carried out an educational programme, including an audit, focusing on the 13 criteria and their rationale.

Results A total of 449 GPs (96.6%) completed the study; 250 in the intervention group and 199 in the control group. After adjusting for baseline differences and clustering effects, a reduction relative to baseline of 10.3% (95% confidence interval = 5.9 to 15.0) PIPs per 100 patients aged ≥70 years was obtained.

Conclusion Educational outreach visits with feedback and audit, using GPs as academic detailers in GPs’ CME groups, reduced PIPs for older patients aged ≥70 years in general practice.

  • aged
  • older people
  • general practice
  • inappropriate prescribing
  • randomised controlled trial
  • Norway

INTRODUCTION

In older people, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) may be characterised as a modern epidemic commonly impairing peoples’ quality of life, and contributing to about one in 10 hospital admissions.1–5 ADRs cause premature deaths in older people, both in hospitals,6 and in the community.7 The economic burden of ADRs is considerable. In the US, annual hospitalisation costs for ADRs in 2001 were estimated to be $121.8 billion.8 ADRs are commonly caused by inappropriate prescriptions,9 in particular for drugs that are contraindicated or unnecessary.10 A large share of ADRs in older people are preventable.11–14 Interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) therefore represent important measures to minimise drug-related harm in older people,15 particularly in the general practice setting where the vast majority of prescriptions for older patients are issued. PIPs have been reported to make up between 5% and 34% of all prescriptions to older patients.16–19

Continuing medical education (CME) is essential for maintaining and improving quality in clinical practice,20,21 and may also include various outreach methods like academic detailing. Academic detailing implies a personal visit by a trained person to health professionals in their own setting.22 Typically, it includes assessment of clinicians’ practice against some recommended quality indicators aiming to improve their practice. Academic detailing may be individual visits or group visits of variable duration and may be one out of several components in a multifaceted educational intervention. Academic detailing is found to be superior to, for example, distribution of printed educational materials,23 conferences, or local opinion leaders.24

Studies of educational interventions addressing GPs’ prescribing to older patients are frequently limited to some selected drugs or diagnoses.25

This article from the Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) study reports the effects of a multifaceted educational intervention in general practice aiming to reduce the prevalence of a set of listed PIPs for older patients.

METHOD

Participants and setting

In Norway, GP specialists have to renew their specialty every 5 years. Recertification demands participation in a number of peer CME group meetings. Typically, a peer CME group comprises seven or eight GPs who set up their own educational programme for monthly evening meetings. Based on lists provided by the Norwegian Medical Association, peer CME groups in south-eastern parts of Norway (n = 250), were invited by mail to participate in one of two educational interventions. They were informed that the intervention would be decided by randomisation and the two groups would serve as controls for each other. The GPs’ participation would be awarded with CME credits corresponding to a 2-day course.

How this fits in

Most studies from general practice reporting effects of educational interventions to improve physicians’ prescribing quality are limited to a few drugs or therapeutic areas. Reviews have underlined a need for more optimal study designs when assessing the effects of educational interventions. The cluster randomised multifaceted intervention study reported here included about 10% of all GPs in Norway. The intervention, carried out by trained GPs in peer continuous medical education groups, targeted potentially inappropriate prescriptions for older patients across a wide spectrum of therapeutic areas. Significant improvements were obtained for 12 out of 13 predefined explicit criteria for inappropriate prescriptions.

The randomisation was stratified by five geographical regions, in order to reconcile the number of available tutors needed for each arm of the study within each region. Within each stratum, the CME group number and the type of intervention was allocated separately and randomly by staff not engaged in the project. Based on this randomisation, the CME groups were allocated to either the study intervention group or the control group (Figure 1). The study intervention consisted of an educational package on safer prescribing practice for older patients.26 The control groups were assigned to another educational intervention targeting antibiotic prescribing practice for respiratory tract infections.27

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the trial.

Criteria for inappropriate prescription to older people

Inspired by the US Beers’ criteria,28,29 and recommendations by The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare,30 a set of 13 explicit PIP criteria, assumed to be relevant for the Norwegian general practice setting, were developed for this study. The criteria comprised 18 different drugs and six drug–drug combinations to be avoided whenever possible for patients aged ≥70 years (Box 1).

Box 1. Thirteen explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate prescriptions used for assessing the appropriateness of GPs’ prescriptions to older patients (≥70 years)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

The educational study intervention

Thirteen GPs were recruited as tutors, denoted as peer academic detailers (PADs). The PADs were either GPs working part time at the Department of General Practice, University of Oslo, or GPs known by the authors from previous CME activities. Each tutor participated in two 2-day pre-study training sessions, focusing on: (1) safety issues in relation to pharmacological treatment in older people; (2) the rationale for the 13 listed PIPs; and (3) how to facilitate learning within a group setting. To avoid conflicts of interests, neither the researchers nor the PADs could have any economic relationships with pharmaceutical companies. With the exception of the statistician, all authors of this paper also served as PADs. Each tutor was responsible for visiting an average of three CME groups.

During a 6-month period (January to June 2006), the CME groups were visited twice by a PAD (Figure 1).

Data-extraction procedures and intervention logistics were piloted in one peer CME group before the intervention, resulting in only minor technical modifications.

Visits in the CME groups, feedback and audit

In the first visit, the main teaching elements of the intervention were presented, including general issues related to drugs in older people. Informed consent was obtained from each GP to get access to their prescription data as recorded in the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD).31

Based on baseline data from the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, individual prescription reports were made and sent to each GP shortly after the first academic detailing visit. The report included individual pre-study (baseline) prevalences of the 13 PIP criteria, as compared to average figures for all participating GPs. The reports also included some suggestions for alternative and safer therapeutic options.

A second academic detailing visit took place about 2 months after the first one and focused on the GPs’ individual prescription patterns in relation to the recommendations given in the first visit and as disclosed in the feedback reports. The PADs facilitated the discussion within the CME group, where each GP exposed their own prescription patterns as presented in his or her report, and potentials for improvements were discussed within the group.

Regional workshop

Three months after the second academic detailing visit, all GPs were gathered at a regional full-day workshop, chaired by two of the authors. Here, rational pharmacological treatment for older patients aged ≥70 years was outlined in more depth, including the evidence for using the 13 explicit criteria as outcome measures in this study.

One year after the intervention, GPs’ post-study prescription data were captured from NorPD for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007. New personal reports were generated and sent to the participating GPs. Here, improvements in individual GPs’ prescription patterns were presented in comparison to overall averages.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing

PIPs were measured as the number of new instances of inappropriate prescribing for each of the 1-year observation periods according to the list of explicit criteria (Box 1). For each of the single drug criteria (criteria 1 to 7, Box 1), a prescription for that medication within 1 year was defined as one ‘hit’ for the patient. Repeat prescription during the observation period did not add up more hits. For the drug–drug combination criteria (criteria 8 to 12, Box 1), prescription of a listed drug–drug combination within the same month, or estimated concurrent use over a period of 1 month or more, was defined as one ‘hit’. Duration of use was estimated based on prescribed amounts, in terms of defined daily doses (DDDs).32 Concomitant uses of three or more psychotropic drugs (criterion 13, Box 1) was defined as one ‘hit’ when the prescribed amounts (DDDs) of the drugs indicated concurrent use over a period of 3 months or more.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome measures were changes in prescription patterns after the tailored educational intervention according to the listed criteria (Box 1), and as compared with corresponding figures for the control group.

Sample size and statistics

It was assumed that the average number of GPs per CME group was 7.5, the average number of listed patients aged ≥70 years per GP was 165,33 and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) was set to be 0.085, based on a previous Norwegian academic detailing study in general practice.34 The sample size calculation was based on the objective to detect, with 80% power, a clinically significant change in the proportions of patients that were given potentially inappropriate prescriptions, from an assumed proportion of 25% (based on a pilot study involving 13 physicians) to 17%, at a 5% significance level. With an assumed ICC of treatment choices of 0.085, for clustering of patients within peer groups, and an assumed number of 165 patients aged ≥70 years per practice and 7.5 practices per peer group, the total design effect would be 106.1; thus the number of patients needed in each arm of the study after accounting for intracluster correlation was 43 077. Dividing this again among practices and then peer groups, it was calculated that 35 peer groups were required in each trial arm. Allowing for varying group sizes and some withdrawals, it was decided to recruit a total of about 80 peer groups.

RESULTS

A total of 81 CME groups responded positively and were randomised to either an intervention group (41 CME groups) or a control group (40 CME groups). For reasons of feasibility, two small CME groups in the control group were merged into one (Figure 1).

Sixteen GPs (six in the intervention group and 10 in the control group) dropped out, owing to altered employment or leave of absence; 449 GPs (96.5%) completed the trial (250 in the intervention group and 199 in the control group). Characteristics of the participating GPs and their prescriptions to older patients (1 034 034 prescriptions for 81 810 patients before and 1 104 391 for 80 521 after the intervention) are listed in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of participating continous medical education (CME) groups and GPs

Effects of the intervention

Unadjusted pre- and post-study prescriptions to the more than 80 000 patients aged ≥70 years are presented in Table 2. For all indicators except ‘concomitant use of three or more psychotropic drugs’, the reduction of PIPs was apparent in the intervention group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) issued by 449 GPs to 81 810 patients aged ≥70 years before and 80 521 patients after an educational intervention

Adjusted for changes in the control group, the share of all prescriptions that were considered to be potentially inappropriate went down by 13% relative to baseline (0.3% in absolute terms, meaning the difference between rates before and after the intervention). Prior to the intervention, 9278 out of 46 737 patients in the intervention group received one or more PIP. This was reduced to 7655 out of 45 310 (Table 3). Adjusted for both baseline differences and intra-cluster effects, the prevalence of PIPs was reduced by 3.3% or 12.1% relative to baseline (Table 4). The largest reductions as compared with baseline were seen for drugs with strong anticholinergic properties: tricyclics, ‘old’ antihistamines and ‘old’ antipsychotics (18.9%), and for the combination of a non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug with warfarin (33.3%) (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Effects of an educational intervention in general practice on the number of older patients being exposed to ≥PIP, mean number of PIPs per 100 older patients, and mean number of PIPs per 100 prescriptions

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) for patients aged ≥70 years at baseline by the various PIP criteria and changed prescribing due to the educational intervention

Intracluster correlation coefficient

With regard to the total PIP rates, the estimated ICCs for baseline data were 0.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15 to 0.42) for the intervention groups and 0.23 (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.41) for the controls. For the post-intervention data, the ICCs were 0.21 (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.38) (intervention group) and 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09 to 0.37) (controls). When including both intervention/control and pre/post intervention as explanatory variables, the estimated residual ICC was 0.27 (95% CI = 0.20 to 0.36).

From a covariance analysis including the baseline PIP rates as the explanatory variable, the residual ICCs for the post-intervention data were 0.025 (95% CI = 0.001 to 0.500) for the intervention arm and 0.059 (95% CI = 0.001 to 0.300) for the control arm. When the intervention group was included as a covariate (intervention versus controls), the estimated residual ICC became 0.045 (95% CI = 0.009 to 0.190).

DISCUSSION

Summary

The multifaceted educational intervention in peer CME groups in this study resulted in fewer PIPs for older patients. Even if moderate, these reductions in inappropriate prescribing may be clinically important at a population level. The 12.1% reduction in PIPs to older patients observed is considered to be clinically relevant.35 In other words, about one in eight inappropriate prescriptions were avoided, which here corresponds to about 1600 patients who were no longer or less exposed to PIPs.

Strengths and limitations

This was a large study including approximately one-tenth of all Norwegian GPs. This, combined with an extraordinarily high completion rate (96.5%), a strong clinical relevance experienced by the participating GPs,36 and the completeness of the prescription data, all strengthen the study results. The fact that an intervention effect was observed for almost all outcome measures contributes further to the validity of the results.

The average CME groups in the control arm included fewer GPs than those in the trial arm. This was mostly caused by some extraordinarily large CME groups randomised to the intervention. This happened by coincidence and did not influence the results. Thirty-two per cent of the invited peer CME groups agreed to participate. To reveal possible differences in prescribing practice between those who agreed to participate and those who did not, a comparison was made between the participating GPs and all other Norwegian GP specialists. No significant differences in their prescribing practice were revealed.37

Therefore, the authors believe that the participating GPs were fairly representative of the Norwegian population of GPs in general. Using GPs as PADs possibly had a positive effect on both GPs’ participation and their perceptions of the relevance of the intervention. Focus group interviews with GPs and PADs after the intervention revealed a positive attitude among GPs to receiving advice and guidance from fellow GPs.36 The PADs did not consider themselves to be experts, but rather as ‘members of the same family’, and this, combined with their independence from both the pharmaceutical industry and health authorities, was probably important in obtaining GPs’ trust and acceptance. The extra benefits gained by using GPs instead of non-physicians as academic detailing visitors have also been reported in a Dutch study.38

GPs in the control group also improved their prescribing practice for older patients; this may partly be due to a Hawthorne effect in response to the fact that they knew they were being studied.39 The design of this study and others with a similar design may thus underestimate the effects of the intervention.

The effect of the intervention is likely to be influenced by the choice of PIP criteria, not only because of the different prevalences of the various criteria, but maybe also as a result of different levels of agreement among the GPs, in relation to the criteria. For example, the proportion of GPs prescribing tricyclic antidepressants went down by 16.7% (0.4% in absolute terms), while no corresponding effect was seen on simultaneous prescription of three or more different psychotropic drugs. Less effect on the latter may also reflect an expanding market for newer psychopharmaceutical drugs, but also that for some drugs, or in some contexts, barriers to improved prescribing may be more difficult to identify and overcome.

The ICC accounts for the relatedness of clustered data by comparing the variance within clusters with the variance between clusters.40 Based on another Norwegian cluster randomised educational intervention trial in general practice,34 the sample size needed for this trial was calculated based on the ICC factor (0.085) of the earlier trial. However, that study was randomised at the level of GP practices and focused on antibiotic prescribing for urinary tract infections, which is a clinical procedure that is likely to be standardised at practice level. Therefore, it is not surprising that a lower ICC (0.045) was found in the present study, which also implied that the sample size was more than sufficient.

Comparison with existing literature

No other studies with a comparable design and based in general practice have been found that investigate the effects of a broad spectrum of PIP criteria, as seen in this study. A review from 2009 included 24 intervention studies on reducing inappropriate prescriptions to older patients.25 Only four studies were educational interventions, two of which targeted limited therapeutic areas such as reduction of prescribing long-acting benzodiazepines to older people,41 or of inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibtors.42 Only one study examined the effect of interventions on overall prescribing quality,43 but the study lacked a control group. Owing to its size (large numbers of participating GPs) and scope (addressing prescribing quality across multiple therapeutic areas), the present study represents an important contribution to the knowledge of educational interventions in general practice.

Implications for research and practice

In a three-round Delphi process among Norwegian specialists in clinical pharmacology, geriatrics and general practice, the PIP criteria used in this trial have subsequently been rated along with 23 other criteria to be ‘clinically highly relevant’.41 The output of that exercise was the Norwegian General Practice criteria for assessing PIPs to older patients.44 An updated version of the Beers’ criteria has been published recently,45 illustrating the continuous need for updating the PIP criteria.

However, it is not known how the intervention effects found in this study will progress. A long-term follow-up is therefore planned. Furthermore, the effects reported here are averages for a large sample of GPs, some of whom may have changed their own prescribing for older patients substantially, while others may not have done so. Therefore, it will be relevant to identify factors predicting different effect sizes. This will be explored in more detail in a forthcoming paper. Studies including clinical patient outcomes related to interventions towards PIPs are also required, as well as health-economic analyses assessing cost–benefit issues related to this kind of intervention.

Acknowledgments

We thank the peer academic detailers and all the participating GPs, with special thanks to Svein Gjelstad for data file management. Finally, we thank the Norwegian Ministry of Health, the Norwegian Medical Association, and the Research Council of Norway for making this study possible.

Notes

Funding

The study was carried out with grants from the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Ministry of Health and the Research Council of Norway.

Ethical approval

Extraction of data from the Norwegian Prescription Database was based on written, informed consent from all physicians. The regional committee approved the project for research ethics and the Norwegian Social Science Data Service. The Directorate for Health and Social Affairs accepted a dispensation from the Health-Professional Secrecy regulations. However, all patient data were anonymised before analyses. The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (region South) in October 2005 (reference S-05272), and by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services in October 2005 (reference 200500838 SM/RH).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received December 19, 2012.
  • Revision received February 24, 2013.
  • Accepted May 7, 2013.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gosney M,
    2. Tallis R
    (1984) Prescription of contraindicated and interacting drugs in elderly patients admitted to hospital. Lancet 2(8402):564–567.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Hallas J
    (1996) Drug related hospital admissions in subspecialities of internal medicine. Dan Med Bull 43(2):141–155.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.
    1. Mjorndal T,
    2. Boman MD,
    3. Hagg S,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Adverse drug reactions as a cause for admissions to a department of internal medicine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11(1):65–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Pirmohamed M,
    2. James S,
    3. Meakin S,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 329(7456):15–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Schneeweiss S,
    2. Hasford J,
    3. Gottler M,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Admissions caused by adverse drug events to internal medicine and emergency departments in hospitals: a longitudinal population-based study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 58(4):285–291.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Buajordet I,
    2. Ebbesen J,
    3. Erikssen J,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Fatal adverse drug events: the paradox of drug treatment. J Intern Med 250(4):327–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Wester K,
    2. Jonsson AK,
    3. Spigset O,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 65(4):573–579.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ernst FR,
    2. Grizzle AJ
    (2001) Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 41(2):192–199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schmader KE,
    2. Hanlon JT,
    3. Pieper CF,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Effects of geriatric evaluation and management on adverse drug reactions and suboptimal prescribing in the frail elderly. Am J Med 116(6):394–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lindley CM,
    2. Tully MP,
    3. Paramsothy V,
    4. et al.
    (1992) Inappropriate medication is a major cause of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Age Ageing 21(4):294–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Atkin PA,
    2. Veitch PC,
    3. Veitch EM,
    4. et al.
    (1999) The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly. Drugs Aging 14(2):141–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Goettler M,
    2. Schneeweiss S,
    3. Hasford J
    (1997) Adverse drug reaction monitoring--cost and benefit considerations. Part II: cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 6(suppl 3):S79–S90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    1. Howard R,
    2. Avery A,
    3. Bissell P
    (2008) Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care 17(2):109–116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Howard RL,
    2. Avery AJ,
    3. Slavenburg S,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63(2):136–147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Schmader KE,
    2. Hanlon JT,
    3. Landsman PB,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Inappropriate prescribing and health outcomes in elderly veteran outpatients. Ann Pharmacother 31(5):529–533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Aparasu RR,
    2. Sitzman SJ
    (1999) Inappropriate prescribing for elderly outpatients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56(5):433–439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. Brekke M,
    2. Rognstad S,
    3. Straand J,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Pharmacologically inappropriate prescriptions for elderly patients in general practice: how common? Baseline data from The Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) study. Scand J Prim Health Care 26(2):80–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    1. Nyborg G,
    2. Straand J,
    3. Brekke M
    (2012) Inappropriate prescribing for the elderly--a modern epidemic? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 68(7):1085–1094.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Straand J,
    2. Rokstad KS
    (1999) Elderly patients in general practice: diagnoses, drugs and inappropriate prescriptions. A report from the More & Romsdal Prescription Study. Fam Pract 16(4):380–388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Brown CA,
    2. Belfield CR,
    3. Field SJ
    (2002) Cost effectiveness of continuing professional development in health care: a critical review of the evidence. BMJ 324(7338):652–655.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Vaughn HT,
    2. Rogers JL,
    3. Freeman JK
    (2006) Does requiring continuing education units for professional licensing renewal assure quality patient care? Health Care Manag (Frederick) 25(1):78–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Soumerai SB,
    2. Avorn J
    (1990) Principles of educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA 263(4):549–556.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Farmer AP,
    2. Legare F,
    3. Turcot L,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD004398.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Flodgren G,
    2. Parmelli E,
    3. Doumit G,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (8):CD000125.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kaur S,
    2. Mitchell G,
    3. Vitetta L,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Interventions that can reduce inappropriate prescribing in the elderly: a systematic review. Drugs Aging 26(12):1013–1028.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Straand J,
    2. Fetveit A,
    3. Rognstad S,
    4. et al.
    (2006) A cluster-randomized educational intervention to reduce inappropriate prescription patterns for elderly patients in general practice — The Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) study [NCT00281450]. BMC Health Serv Res 6:72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Gjelstad S,
    2. Fetveit A,
    3. Straand J,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Can antibiotic prescriptions in respiratory tract infections be improved? A cluster-randomized educational intervention in general practice — the Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) Study [NCT00272155]. BMC Health Serv Res 6:75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Beers MH,
    2. Ouslander JG,
    3. Rollingher I,
    4. et al.
    (1991) Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. UCLA Division of Geriatric Medicine. Arch Intern Med 151(9):1825–1832.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Beers MH
    (1997) Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med 157(14):1531–1536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare [Socialstyrelsen]
    (2003) Indicators for evaluation of the quality of drug therapy in the elderly, In Swedish. Report 2003-110-20, http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2003/2003-110-20 (accessed 4 Jul 2013).
  31. 31.↵
    Norwegian Prescription Database, www.fhi.no (accessed 29 May 2013).
  32. 32.↵
    1. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology
    Definition and general considerations [definition of the defined daily dose], http://www.whocc.no/ddd/definition_and_general_considera/ (accessed 28 May 2013).
  33. 33.↵
    1. The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service
    Statistics for The Regular General Practionar Sceme(GP Scheme) in Norway, http://www.nav.no/Om+NAV/Tall+og+analyse/Annen+statistikk/Helsetjenester/FastlegeordningenT (accessed 29 May 2013).
  34. 34.↵
    1. Flottorp S,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Havelsrud K,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. BMJ 325(7360):367.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Higashi T,
    2. Shekelle PG,
    3. Adams JL,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Quality of care is associated with survival in vulnerable older patients. Ann Intern Med 143(4):274–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Frich JC,
    2. Hoye S,
    3. Lindbaek M,
    4. et al.
    (2010) General practitioners and tutors’ experiences with peer group academic detailing: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 11:12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Gjelstad S,
    2. Straand J,
    3. Dalen I,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Do general practitioners’ consultation rates influence their prescribing patterns of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections? J Antimicrob Chemother 66(10):2425–2433.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Van den Hombergh P,
    2. Grol R,
    3. van den Hoogen HJ,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers. Qual Health Care 8(3):161–166.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  39. 39.↵
    1. McCarney R,
    2. Warner J,
    3. Iliffe S,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Killip S,
    2. Mahfoud Z,
    3. Pearce K
    (2004) What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med 2(3):204–208.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Midlov P,
    2. Bondesson A,
    3. Eriksson T,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Effects of educational outreach visits on prescribing of benzodiazepines and antipsychotic drugs to elderly patients in primary health care in southern Sweden. Fam Pract 23(1):60–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Batuwitage BT,
    2. Kingham JG,
    3. Morgan NE,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in primary care. Postgrad Med J 83(975):66–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Wessell AM,
    2. Nietert PJ,
    3. Jenkins RG,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Inappropriate medication use in the elderly: results from a quality improvement project in 99 primary care practices. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 6(1):21–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Rognstad S,
    2. Brekke M,
    3. Fetveit A,
    4. et al.
    (2009) The Norwegian General Practice (NORGEP) criteria for assessing potentially inappropriate prescriptions to elderly patients. Scand J Prim Health Care 27(3):153–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel
    (2012) American Geriatrics Society updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(4):616–631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (613)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 613
August 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Sture Rognstad, Mette Brekke, Arne Fetveit, Ingvild Dalen, Jørund Straand
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (613): e554-e562. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X670688

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Sture Rognstad, Mette Brekke, Arne Fetveit, Ingvild Dalen, Jørund Straand
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (613): e554-e562. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X670688
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • aged
  • older people
  • general practice
  • inappropriate prescribing
  • randomised controlled trial
  • Norway

More in this TOC Section

  • The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review
  • Performance of ethnic minority versus White doctors in the MRCGP assessment 2016–2021: a cross-sectional study
  • Trends in the registration of anxiety in Belgian primary care from 2000 to 2021: a registry-based study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242