An evaluation of the effectiveness of an algorithm intervention in reducing inappropriate faecal samples sent for Clostridium difficile testing.

Background: Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a leading cause of infectious diarrhoea in hospitals. Sending faecal samples for testing expedites diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Clinical suspicion of C. difficile based on patient history, signs and symptoms is the basis for sampling. Sending faecal samples from patients with diarrhoea ‘just in case’ the patient has C. difficile may be an indication of poor clinical management.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention by an Infection Prevention and Control Team (IPCT) in reducing inappropriate faecal samples sent for C. difficile testing.

Method: An audit of numbers of faecal samples sent before and after a decision-making algorithm was introduced. The number of samples received in the laboratory was retrospectively counted for 12-week periods before and after an algorithm was introduced.
Findings: There was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of faecal samples sent post the algorithm. Results were compared to a similar intervention carried out in 2009 in which the same message was delivered by a memorandum. In 2009 the memorandum had no effect on the overall number of weekly samples being sent.

Conclusion: An algorithm intervention had an effect on the number of faecal samples being sent for C. difficile testing and thus contributed to the effective use of the laboratory service.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing among people with dementia in primary care: a retrospective cross-sectional study using the Enhanced Prescribing Database

Background: Little is known about prescribing appropriateness for community-dwelling people with dementia (PWD).
Objective To estimate potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) prevalence among PWD in primary care in Northern Ireland, and to investigate associations between PIP and polypharmacy, age and gender.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted, using data from the Enhanced Prescribing Database. Patients were eligible if a medicine indicated for dementia management was dispensed to them during 01/01/2013 – 31/12/2013. Polypharmacy was indicated by use of ≥4 repeat medications from different drug groups. A subset of the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, comprising 36 indicators, was applied to the dataset. Overall prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion was calculated as a proportion of all eligible persons in the dataset. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and gender.

Results: The study population comprised 6826 patients. Polypharmacy was observed in 81.5% (n=5564) of patients. PIP prevalence during the study period was 64.4% (95% CI 63.2 – 65.5; n=4393). The most common instance of PIP was the use of anticholinergic/antimuscarinic medications (n=1718; 25.2%; 95% CI 24.2 – 26.2). In multivariable analyses, both polypharmacy and gender (being female) were associated with PIP, with odds ratios of 7.6 (95% CI 6.6 – 8.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 – 1.4) respectively. No association was observed between PIP and age, after adjustments for gender and polypharmacy.

Conclusion: This study identified a high prevalence of PIP in community-dwelling PWD. Future interventions may need to focus on certain therapeutic categories and polypharmacy.

PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.


Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.


Setting Irish and UK general practice.


Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.


Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).


Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.