Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Helen J Curtis, Brian MacKenna, Bhavana Reddy, Alex J Walker, Sebastian Bacon, Rafael Perera, Ben Goldacre
{"title":"Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net.","authors":"Helen J Curtis, Brian MacKenna, Bhavana Reddy, Alex J Walker, Sebastian Bacon, Rafael Perera, Ben Goldacre","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11575-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>NHS England issued commissioning guidance on 18 low-priority treatments which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care. We aimed to monitor the impact of an educational intervention delivered to regional prescribing advisors by senior pharmacists from NHS England on the primary care spend on low-priority items.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An opportunistic randomised, controlled parallel-group trial. Participants (clinical commissioning groups, CCGs) were randomised to intervention or control in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group were invited to participate. The intervention was a one-off educational session. Our primary outcomes concerned the total prescribing of low-priority items in primary care. Secondary outcomes concerned the prescribing of specific low-priority items. We also measured the impact on information-seeking behaviour.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>40 CCGs were randomised, 20 allocated to intervention, with 11 receiving the intervention. There was no significant impact on any prescribing outcomes. There was some possible evidence of increased engagement with data, in the form of CCG email alert sign-ups (p = 0.077). No harms were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A one-off intervention delivered to CCGs by NHS England did not significantly influence low-priority prescribing. This trial demonstrates how routine interventions planned to improve uptake or adherence to healthcare guidance can be delivered as low-cost randomised trials and how to robustly assess their effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN31218900, October 01 2018.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"308"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11575-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: NHS England issued commissioning guidance on 18 low-priority treatments which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care. We aimed to monitor the impact of an educational intervention delivered to regional prescribing advisors by senior pharmacists from NHS England on the primary care spend on low-priority items.

Methods: An opportunistic randomised, controlled parallel-group trial. Participants (clinical commissioning groups, CCGs) were randomised to intervention or control in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group were invited to participate. The intervention was a one-off educational session. Our primary outcomes concerned the total prescribing of low-priority items in primary care. Secondary outcomes concerned the prescribing of specific low-priority items. We also measured the impact on information-seeking behaviour.

Results: 40 CCGs were randomised, 20 allocated to intervention, with 11 receiving the intervention. There was no significant impact on any prescribing outcomes. There was some possible evidence of increased engagement with data, in the form of CCG email alert sign-ups (p = 0.077). No harms were detected.

Conclusions: A one-off intervention delivered to CCGs by NHS England did not significantly influence low-priority prescribing. This trial demonstrates how routine interventions planned to improve uptake or adherence to healthcare guidance can be delivered as low-cost randomised trials and how to robustly assess their effectiveness.

Trial registration: ISRCTN31218900, October 01 2018.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信