Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Background
People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications, but also might increase their adverse effects.

Objectives
To update a review summarizing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, including mental disorders but not addictions.

Search methods
We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO (all via OVID) and Sociological Abstracts (via CSA) in January 2007 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence and articles in our personal collections, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.

Selection criteria
Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings.

Data collection and analysis
Study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one review author and confirmed by at least one other review author. We extracted adherence rates and their measures of variance for all methods of measuring adherence in each study, and all outcome rates and their measures of variance for each study group, as well as levels of statistical significance for differences between study groups, consulting authors and verifying or correcting analyses as needed. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Therefore, we did not feel that quantitative analysis was scientifically justified; rather, we conducted a qualitative analysis.

Main results
For short-term treatments, four of ten interventions reported in nine RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and at least one clinical outcome, while one intervention reported in one RCT significantly improved patient adherence, but did not enhance the clinical outcome. For long-term treatments, 36 of 83 interventions reported in 70 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 25 interventions led to improvement in at least one treatment outcome. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counseling, family therapy, psychological therapy, crisis intervention, manual telephone follow-up, and supportive care. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes.

Authors' conclusions
For short-term treatments several quite simple interventions increased adherence and improved patient outcomes, but the effects were inconsistent from study to study with less than half of studies showing benefits. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. High priority should be given to fundamental and applied research concerning innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions for long-term medical disorders.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.

Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised?

Background
Falls in nursing care facilities and hospitals are common events that cause considerable morbidity and mortality for older people.

Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce falls by older people in nursing care facilities and hospitals.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2009); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2); MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (all to November 2008); trial registers and reference lists of articles.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce falls in older people in nursing care facilities or hospitals. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and risk of falling.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate.

Main results
We included 41 trials (25,422 participants).

In nursing care facilities, the results from seven trials testing supervised exercise interventions were inconsistent. This was the case too for multifactorial interventions, which overall did not significantly reduce the rate of falls (rate ratio (RaR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08; 7 trials, 2997 participants) or risk of falling (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 8 trials, 3271 participants). A post hoc subgroup analysis, however, indicated that where provided by a multidisciplinary team, multifactorial interventions reduced the rate of falls (RaR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.72; 4 trials, 1651 participants) and risk of falling (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 5 trials, 1925 participants). Vitamin D supplementation reduced the rate of falls (RaR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 4 trials, 4512 participants), but not risk of falling (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 5 trials, 5095 participants).

In hospitals, multifactorial interventions reduced the rate of falls (RaR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96; 4 trials, 6478 participants) and risk of falling (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; 3 trials, 4824 participants). Supervised exercise interventions showed a significant reduction in risk of falling (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.97; 3 trials, 131 participants).

Authors' conclusions
There is evidence that multifactorial interventions reduce falls and risk of falling in hospitals and may do so in nursing care facilities. Vitamin D supplementation is effective in reducing the rate of falls in nursing care facilities. Exercise in subacute hospital settings appears effective but its effectiveness in nursing care facilities remains uncertain.

Interventions for preventing falls in older people in nursing care facilities and hospitals

Cochrane review, hvor hensikten var a vurdere effekten av intervensjoner designet for reduksjon av fall blant eldre mennesker i sykehjem og sykehus.

Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals

Objective: to measure the impact of pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review with elderly care home residents. Design: randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against usual care. Setting: sixty-five care homes for the elderly in Leeds, UK. Participants: a total of 661 residents aged 65+ years on one or more medicines. Intervention: clinical medication review by a pharmacist with patient and clinical records. Recommendations to general practitioner for approval and implementation. Control patients received usual general practitioner care. Main outcome measures: primary: number of changes in medication per participant. Secondary: number and cost of repeat medicines per participant; medication review rate; mortality, falls, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, Barthel index, Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). Results: the pharmacist reviewed 315/331 (95.2%) patients in 6 months. A total of 62/330 (18.8%) control patients were reviewed by their general practitioner. The mean number of drug changes per patient were 3.1 for intervention and 2.4 for control group (P < 0.0001). There were respectively 0.8 and 1.3 falls per patient (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for GP consultations per patient (means 2.9 and 2.8 in 6 months, P = 0.5), hospitalisations (means 0.2 and 0.3, P = 0.11), deaths (51/331 and 48/330, P = 0.81), Barthel score (9.8 and 9.3, P = 0.06), SMMSE score (13.9 and 13.8, P = 0.62), number and cost of drugs per patient (6.7 and 6.9, P = 0.5) (£42.24 and £42.94 per 28 days). A total of 75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist recommendations were accepted by the general practitioner; and 76.6% (433/565) of accepted recommendations were implemented. Conclusions: general practitioners do not review most care home patients’ medication. A clinical pharmacist can review them and make recommendations that are usually accepted. This leads to substantial change in patients’ medication regimens without change in drug costs. There is a reduction in the number of falls. There is no significant change in consultations, hospitalisation, mortality, SMMSE or Barthel scores.

/pdf/clinical-medication-review-by-a-pharmacist-of-elderly-people-4pw88iab57.pdf

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly people living in care homes—randomised controlled trial

Objective: To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design: Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting: Four general practices. Participants: 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention: Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures: Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results: 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference=0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P=0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference £4.72 per 28 days, −£7.04 to -£2.41); equivalent to £61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference −0.2, −0.4 to −0.1). There was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions: A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients9 drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners. What is already known on this topic Review of patients on long term drug treatment is important but is done inadequately Evidence from the United States shows that pharmacists can improve patient care by reviewing drug treatment What this study adds Consultations with a clinical pharmacist are an effective method of reviewing the drug treatment of older patients Review by a pharmacist results in more drug changes and lower prescribing costs than normal care plus a much higher review rate Use of healthcare services by patients is not increased

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/323/7325/1340.full.pdf

Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

/pdf/prevalence-duration-and-indications-for-prescribing-of-1t1llljo7s.pdf

Prevalence, duration and indications for prescribing of antidepressants in primary care

/pdf/clinical-medication-review-by-a-pharmacist-of-patients-on-515x5o3vr1.pdf

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of patients on repeat prescriptions in general practice: a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives To examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing. Design Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data. Setting 111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK. Participants We observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse. Main outcome measures Long-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids. Results Opioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005–2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31–3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75). Conclusions While clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/5/e010276.full.pdf

Duncan Petty

Papers

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly people living in care homes—randomised controlled trial

Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

Prevalence, duration and indications for prescribing of antidepressants in primary care

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of patients on repeat prescriptions in general practice: a randomised controlled trial.

Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics