‘Potentially inappropriate or specifically appropriate?’ Qualitative evaluation of general practitioners views on prescribing, polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people in primary care, as evidenced by a significant body of quantitative research. However, relatively few qualitative studies have investigated the phenomenon of PIP and its underlying processes from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this paper is to explore qualitatively, GP perspectives regarding prescribing and PIP in older primary care patients.

Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to decrease PIP in older patients (≥70 years) in Ireland. Interviews were conducted with GP participants (both intervention and control) from the OPTI-SCRIPT cluster RCT as part of the trial process evaluation between January and July 2013. Interviews were conducted by one interviewer and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted (13 male; 4 female). Three main, inter-related themes emerged (complex prescribing environment, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship, and relevance of PIP concept). Patient complexity (e.g. polypharmacy, multimorbidity), as well as prescriber complexity (e.g. multiple prescribers, poor communication, restricted autonomy) were all identified as factors contributing to a complex prescribing environment where PIP could occur, as was a paternalistic-doctor patient relationship. The concept of PIP was perceived to be of variable usefulness to GPs and the criteria to measure it may be at odds with the complex processes of prescribing for this patient population.

Conclusions: Several inter-related factors contributing to the occurrence of PIP were identified, some of which may be amenable to intervention. Improvement strategies focused on improved management of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and communication across primary and secondary care could result in substantial improvements in PIP.

Pediatric Oncology Palliative Care: Experiences of General Practitioners and Bereaved Parents

Objective: This qualitative study set in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom, aimed to examine the role of the general practitioner (GP) in children's oncology palliative care from the perspective of GPs who had cared for a child with cancer receiving palliative care at home and bereaved parents. Methods: One-to-one semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 18 GPs and 11 bereaved parents following the death. A grounded theory data analysis was undertaken; identifying generated themes through chronological comparative data analysis. Results: Similarity in GP and parent viewpoints was found, the GPs role seen as one of providing medication and support. Time pressures GPs faced influenced their level of engagement with the family during palliative and bereavement care and their ability to address their identified learning deficits. Lack of familiarity with the family, coupled with an acknowledgment that it was a rare and could be a frightening experience, also influenced their level of interaction. There was no consistency in GP practice nor evidence of practice being guided by local or national policies. Parents lack of clarity of their GPs role resulted in missed opportunities for support. Conclusions: Time pressures influence GP working practices. Enhanced communication and collaboration between the GP and regional childhood cancer centre may help address identified GP challenges, such as learning deficits, and promote more time-efficient working practices through role clarity. Parents need greater awareness of their GP's wide-ranging role; one that transcends palliative care incorporating bereavement support and on-going medical care for family members

Variations in chemoprophylaxis for meningococcal disease: a retrospective case note review, analysis of routine prescribing data and questionnaire of general practitioners

BACKGROUND: Invasive meningococcal disease is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in the UK. Administration of chemoprophylaxis to close contacts reduces the risk of a secondary case. However, unnecessary chemoprophylaxis may be associated with adverse reactions, increased antibiotic resistance and removal of organisms, such as Neisseria lactamica, which help to protect against meningococcal disease. Limited evidence exists to suggest that overuse of chemoprophylaxis may occur. This study aimed to evaluate prescribing of chemoprophylaxis for contacts of meningococcal disease by general practitioners and hospital staff. METHODS: Retrospective case note review of cases of meningococcal disease was conducted in one health district from 1st September 1997 to 31st August 1999. Routine hospital and general practitioner prescribing data was searched for chemoprophylactic prescriptions of rifampicin and ciprofloxacin. A questionnaire of general practitioners was undertaken to obtain more detailed information. RESULTS: Prescribing by hospital doctors was in line with recommendations by the Consultant for Communicable Disease Control. General practitioners prescribed 118% more chemoprophylaxis than was recommended. Size of practice and training status did not affect the level of additional prescribing, but there were significant differences by geographical area. The highest levels of prescribing occurred in areas with high disease rates and associated publicity. However, some true close contacts did not appear to receive prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of chemoprophylaxis is affected by a series of patient, doctor and community interactions. High publicity appears to increase demand for prophylaxis. Some true contacts do not receive appropriate chemoprophylaxis and are left at an unnecessarily increased risk

A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.

A survey of sodium hypochlorite use by general dental practitioners and endodontists in Australia

Background: Sodium hypochlorite is used commonly as an endodontic irrigant, but there are no published reports that provide details of its use. This survey sought to determine the percentage of Australian dentists who practiced endodontics, whether they used sodium hypochlorite for irrigation, and the manner of dilution, storage and dispensing sodium hypochlorite used by both dentists and endodontists. Methods: All Australian endodontists and a stratified random sample of 200 general dentists in Australia were surveyed to address the issues identified above. Results: Almost 98 per cent of dentists surveyed performed endodontic treatment. Among endodontists, nearly 94 per cent used sodium hypochlorite for irrigation compared with just under 75 per cent of general dentists: Sodium hypochlorite use by general dentists was more common in Victoria and South Australia than in other States. An infant sanitizer (Milton or Johnson's Antibacterial Solution) was used by just over 92 per cent of general practitioners and by more than 67 per cent of endodontists. All other respondents used domestic bleach. One hundred and sixty four of the respondents (80 per cent of endodontists and over 90 per cent of general dentists) used a 1 per cent w/v solution. Ten practitioners used a 4 per cent w/v solution, five used a 2 per cent w/v solution and four used a 1.5 per cent w/v solution. Eighty per cent of the practitioners who diluted their sodium hypochlorite before use, used demineralized water for this purpose. The remainder used tap water. Only four practitioners stored sodium hypochlorite in a manner which risked light exposure and loss of available chlorine content. Conclusions: Sodium hypochlorite is commonly used as an endodontic irrigant and Australian dentists generally stored the material correctly.

Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in metropolitan and rural Queensland: A general practice survey

The prevalence of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (IPD) in Australia is unclear. We estimated the prevalence of IPD, and other forms of parkinsonism, through the study of typical caseloads in general practice. A random sample of general practitioners (GPs) throughout Queensland (401 responses from 528 validated practice addresses) was asked to estimate the numbers of patients with IPD and parkinsonism seen in the preceding year. The estimated prevalence of diagnosed IPD in Queensland was 146 per 100 000 (95% CI = 136–155). A further 51 per 100 000 in the population were suspected by doctors to have IPD without formal diagnosis, whereas another 51 per 100 000 people may have non-idiopathic parkinsonism. Idiopathic Parkinson’s disease was more common in rural than metropolitan areas. Although most GPs were confident in making diagnoses of IPD, the majority had little or no confidence in their ability to treat the disease, especially in its later stages. Support from neurologists was perceived by GPs to be very good in cities, but poor in remote areas.

Breastfeeding and the responsibilities of GPs: a qualitative study of general practice registrars

The most recent National Health Survey reports that more than 80% of women initiate breastfeeding, while recent studies describe initiation rates of more than 90%. Yet fewer than 50% of women continue to breastfeed for 6 months or longer. This is at odds with National Health and Medical Research Council recommendations that 80% of infants be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life. Women are more likely to initiate and continue to breastfeed if their doctor supports and encourages them to do so. Conversely, women perceive a neutral attitude by doctors toward breastfeeding to be similar to a negative attitude. Therefore, while doctors may not perceive their support or encouragement to be a determining factor in a woman’s breastfeeding decisions, women often place great emphasis on their GP's attitude to breastfeeding and are much more likely to think that information provided by a doctor is important. No previous research in Australia has addressed the issue of how GPs perceive their roles and responsibilities regarding breastfeeding. As part of a larger research project investigating the breastfeeding skills and knowledge of general practice registrars, this article reports the results of qualitative interviews with eight general practice registrars and their views and beliefs about GPs’ responsibilities to breastfeeding women.

Applying the results of a systematic review in general practice

Objective: To assess how general practitioners might interpret and apply the results of a systematic review relevant to general practice. Design: Cross-sectional postal survey of general practitioners in August 1997. Participants: 51 general practitioners in the Southern Division of General Practice in Adelaide and 11 professors or heads of departments of general practice. Main outcome measures:Extent to which comments on the implications for practice and implications for research coincided with the evidence presented in a systematic review of antibiotics for the treatment of acute otitis media in children; and reported probability that respondents would prescribe antibiotics in three brief case scenarios. Results: There was considerable variation in the comments made by general practitioners on the implications of the review for clinical practice. After reading the review, respondents with training in critical appraisal were more likely to state that children with acute otitis media would usually recover spontaneously and reported a lower probability of prescribing antibiotics in two of the three case scenarios. Conclusions: Providing systematic reviews is not sufficient for the results of such evidence to be translated:into clinical practice. There is an association between critical appraisal skills and the application of evidence-based practice.

Falls prevention in rural general practice: what stands the test of time and where to from here?

Objective: General practitioner recall of the 1992-96 'Stay on Your Feet'(SOYF) program and its influence on practice were surveyed five years post-intervention to gauge sustainability of the SOYF General Practice (GP) component. Methods: A survey assessed which SOYF components were still in existence, current practice related to falls prevention, and interest in professional development. All general practitioners (GPs) situated within the boundaries of a rural Area Health Service were mailed a survey in late 2001. Results: Response rate was 66.5% (139/ 209). Of 117 GPs in practice at the time of SOYF, 80.2% reported having heard of SOYF and 74.4% of those felt it had influenced practice. Half (50.9%) still had a copy of the SOYF GP resource and of those, 58.6% used it at least 'occasionally'. Three-quarters of GPs surveyed (75.2%) checked medications 'most/almost all' of the time with patients over 60 years; 46.7% assessed falls risk factors; 41.3% gave advice; and 22.6% referred to allied health practitioners. GPs indicated a strong interest in falls prevention- related professional development. There was no significant association between use of the SOYF resource package and any of the current falls prevention practices (all chi(2)>0.05). Conclusions and implications: There was high recall of SOYF and a general belief that it influenced practice. There was little indication that use of the resource had any lasting influence on GPs' practices. In future, careful thought needs to go into designing a program that has potential to affect long-term change in GPs' falls prevention practice.

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the result. Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a results format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

A clinical audit of the prescribing of celecoxib and rofecoxib in Australian rural general practice

Aims The new cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors, celecoxib (Celebrex®) and rofecoxib (Vioxx®), have been widely prescribed since their launch. No reviews currently appear in the literature of prescribing patterns in Australia. This paper describes a self-audit of the clinical use of selective COX-2 inhibitor therapy undertaken with rural general practitioners (GPs) in Australia. Methods A structured audit form was developed and distributed to interested GPs. The form was self-administered and focused on issues about COX-2 inhibitors and the types of patients who were receiving them, e.g. indications, patient demographics, risk factors and drug interactions. Results A total of 627 patients were recruited (569 celecoxib and 58 rofecoxib). A range of doses was prescribed. Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (68.1%). Risk factors known for the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in 65.1% of patients, with the most common being advanced age, hypertension and previous peptic ulcer disease. Potential drug interactions were common. A variety of reasons for initiation of therapy was identified; these included perceived increased efficacy, safety and failure of other treatment. Conclusions These results show that COX-2 inhibitors are being prescribed for patients with multiple risk factors that may place the patient at increased risk of adverse drug reactions to a COX-2 inhibitor. The perception of improved safety and efficacy was common and is of concern. Limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reporting.