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
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

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
Letters

Author response

Aleksandra Borek, Koen Pouwels, Oliver van Hecke and Sarah Tonkin-Crine
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (717): 157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X718901
Aleksandra Borek
University of Oxford, Oxford. Email:
Roles: Senior Qualitative Researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: aleksandra.borek@phc.ox.ac.uk
Koen Pouwels
University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Senior Researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oliver van Hecke
University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Lecturer and GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Tonkin-Crine
University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Associate Professor and Health Psychologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

We thank Dr Zermansky for their engagement with our paper. The qualitative part of this mixed-methods study explored influences on antibiotic prescribing and potential reasons for any differences in patterns of prescribing; so, we agree with Dr Zermansky regarding the complexity of antibiotic prescribing decisions and the many different factors affecting decisions.

The purpose of the quantitative analysis was to describe patterns of prescribing for which the retrospective design is appropriate. It does not focus on mechanisms underlying the observed patterns, such as differences in patient-mix. As highlighted in our article, the quantitative analysis focused on patients without relevant comorbidities, and excluded recurrent, chronic, and complicated (for example, bilateral otitis media) presentations, but this does not guarantee that some of the (absence of) differences are explained by other differences in case-mix seen by nurse prescribers, locums, and other GPs.

We did not explore patterns of prescribing across different days of the week, but previous analyses have shown little difference (see Supplementary Tables S1–S2 in Pouwels et al).1 We accept that our study analysed prescribing data up to 2015 (the dataset that we had access to at the time of the analysis), which we acknowledge as a limitation in the paper.

We disagree with Dr Zermansky’s suggestion that the conclusion should be that all prescribers ‘prescribed antibiotics similarly’. We found a 4% difference between locums’ and other GPs’ antibiotic prescribing. We did not claim this difference to be statistically significant but rather a difference that is potentially clinically significant. To put this 4% in perspective, the 2015/2016 Quality Premium aimed for a reduction in the total number of antibiotics prescribed in primary care by 1% (or greater) from each clinical commissioning group’s 2013/2014 value.2

Overall, we emphasise that our study does not ‘blame’ locums for high prescribing but rather highlights the complex contextual influences on antibiotic prescribing in general practice. Thus, optimising antibiotic prescribing will require changes at the individual, practice, and system levels.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2022

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Pouwels KB,
    2. Dolk FCK,
    3. Smith DRM,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Actual versus ‘ideal’ antibiotic prescribing for common conditions in English primary care. J Antimicrob Chemother 73, Suppl_2, 19–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. NHS England
    (2015) Quality Premium: 2015/16 guidance for CCGs, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/qual-prem-guid.pdf (accessed 10 Mar 2022).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (717)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 717
April 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
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.
Author response
(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
Author response
Aleksandra Borek, Koen Pouwels, Oliver van Hecke, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (717): 157. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718901

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Author response
Aleksandra Borek, Koen Pouwels, Oliver van Hecke, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (717): 157. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718901
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
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • A response to RCGP Chair’s ‘Just Saying’ on refugees to the UK being deported to Rwanda
  • Impact of COVID-19 on primary care contacts with children and young people in England — context please
  • Shaking chills may be better than rigors for sepsis prediction
Show more Letters

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
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

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