Dataset Information

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice.

Design

Qualitative study.

Setting

20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England.

Participants

20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients.

Main outcome measures

Misunderstandings between patients and doctors that have potential or actual adverse consequences for taking medicine.

Results

14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor's decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing.

Conclusions

Patients' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.

SUBMITTER: Britten N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27293 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study.

Britten N N Stevenson F A FA Barry C A CA Barber N N Bradley C P CP

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000201 7233

<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative study.<h4>Setting</h4>20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England.<h4>Participants</h4>20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Misunderstandings between patients and doctors that have potential or actual adverse consequences for taking medicine.<h4>Results</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 10678863

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite widespread availability of evidence-based guidelines to inform rational use of medicines, considerable unwarranted variation exists in prescribing. A greater understanding of key determinants of contemporary prescribing in UK general practice could inform strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing. This study explored (1) current influences on prescribing in general practice and (2) the possibility that general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) may contribute to greater engagement with evidence-based prescribing.DesignSemistructured, telephone interviews and a focus group were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken.ParticipantsGeneral practice prescribers: general practitioners (GPs), PBPs, nurses.Key informants: individuals within the National Health Service (NHS) with responsibility for influencing, monitoring and measuring general practice prescribing.SettingGeneral practices and NHS organisations in England.ResultsInterviews with 17 prescribers (GPs (n=6), PBPs (n=6), nurses (n=5)) and 6 key informants, and one focus group with five key informants were undertaken between November 2018 and April 2019. Determinants operating at individual, practice and societal levels impacted prescribing and guideline use. Prescribers' professional backgrounds, for example, nursing, pharmacy, patient populations and patient pressure were perceived as substantial influences, as well as media portrayal and public perceptions of medicines.Prescribers identified practice-level determinants of prescribing, including practice culture and shared beliefs. Key informants tended to emphasise higher-level influences, including NHS policies, availability of support and advice from secondary care and generic challenges associated with medicines use, for example, multimorbidity.Participants expressed mixed views about the potential of PBPs to promote evidence-based prescribing in general practice.ConclusionPrescribing in UK general practice is influenced by multiple intersecting factors. Strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing should target modifiable influences at practice and individual levels. Customising strategies for medical and non-medical prescribers may maximise their effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing.MethodsAll 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT.ResultsThe implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs' professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance (coherence). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process (cognitive participation) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP (collective action). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels (reflexive monitoring). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees.ConclusionNPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs' professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.

Project description:BackgroundA competitive market for off-patent biologicals leads to more affordable and high-quality healthcare. In recent years, Belgium has been characterized by its low use of biosimilars and by its shifts from off-patent biologicals toward new alternative therapies. Yet, the prescribing decisions involved in these observations are poorly understood. This study aims to better understand prescribing choices among Belgian physicians in the ambulatory care setting.MethodsThis study consisted of two phases. First, a scoping literature review to identify determinants of prescribing choices was conducted. Scientific databases (Embase and PubMed) were searched until 4 November 2021. Second, the nominal group technique (NGT) was employed during focus group discussions with Belgian physicians to consider and validate these determinants for off-patent biologicals in the Belgian context. The qualitative data resulting from the literature review and focus group discussions were analyzed using the thematic framework method.ResultsFifty-three scientific articles that discussed elements that determine prescribing choices were identified. Out of these, 17 determinants of prescribing choices were found. These were divided into five categories: (1) product-related, (2) physicians' personal, (3) healthcare system-related, (4) patient-related, and (5) determinants related to the pharmaceutical company or brand. Nineteen Belgian physicians from different therapeutic areas that regularly prescribe biologicals then participated in focus group discussions. Using the NGT, the group discussions revealed that prescribing choices for off-patent biologicals are determined by a complex set of elements. Clinical data, geographical region, working environment, pharmaceutical marketing, patient profile, clinical guidelines, and preference of key opinion leaders (KOL) were considered most influential. Physicians indicated that the importance of these determinants differs depending on product classes or therapeutic domain.ConclusionsMultiple elements determine the choice of an off-patent biological or biosimilar product. The importance of each of these determinants varies depending on the context in which the prescribing choice is made. To increase the prescription of best-value biologicals in the Belgian ambulatory care, a set of synergistic measures is required including information for healthcare providers (HCP) and patients, prescribing feedback, prescribing targets, tangible incentives, KOL involvement, guidelines regarding pharmaceutical promotion, and regular revision of reimbursement modalities.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore general practice staff, pharmacist and patient experiences with pharmacist services in Australian general practice clinics within the Pharmacists in Practice Study.DesignQualitative study.SettingTwo general practice clinics in Melbourne, Australia, in which pharmacists provided medication reviews, patient and staff education, medicines information and quality assurance services over a 6-month period.ParticipantsPatients, practice staff and pharmacists.MethodSemi-structured telephone interviews with patients, focus groups with practice staff and semi-structured interviews and periodic narrative reports with practice pharmacists. Data were analysed thematically and theoretical frameworks used to explain the findings.Results34 participants were recruited: 18 patients, 14 practice staff (9 general practitioners, 4 practice nurses, 1 practice manager) and 2 practice pharmacists. Five main themes emerged: environment; professional relationships and integration; pharmacist attributes; staff and patient benefits and logistical challenges. Participants reported that colocation and the interdisciplinary environment of general practice enabled better communication and collaboration compared to traditional community and consultant pharmacy services. Participants felt that pharmacists needed to possess certain attributes to ensure successful integration, including being personable and proactive. Attitudinal, professional and logistical barriers were identified but were able to be overcome. The findings were explained using D'Amour's structuration model of collaboration and Roger's diffusion of innovation theory.ConclusionsThis is the first qualitative study to explore the experiences of general practice staff, pharmacists and patients on their interactions within the Australian general practice environment. Participants were receptive of colocated pharmacist services, and various barriers and facilitators to integration were identified. Future research should investigate the feasibility and sustainability of general practice pharmacist roles.

Dataset Information

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets