Inappropriate proton-pump inhibitor prescribing in primary care - an observational study with quality circles.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Swiss medical weekly Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.57187/smw.2023.40119
Renata Vidonscky Lüthold, Nicole Christin Henz, Connor Fuhrer, Andrea Häner, Michael Schenk, Katharina Tabea Jungo, Sven Streit
{"title":"Inappropriate proton-pump inhibitor prescribing in primary care - an observational study with quality circles.","authors":"Renata Vidonscky Lüthold,&nbsp;Nicole Christin Henz,&nbsp;Connor Fuhrer,&nbsp;Andrea Häner,&nbsp;Michael Schenk,&nbsp;Katharina Tabea Jungo,&nbsp;Sven Streit","doi":"10.57187/smw.2023.40119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be deprescribed when an indication is lacking or the dose is too high. Academic and media reports have tried to raise awareness and thereby reduce the inappropriate prescribing of PPIs. However, pharmacoepidemiologic studies have shown an unchanged frequency of such inappropriate prescribing over time. Little is known about whether or how general practitioners (GPs) adapt their prescribing practices once their awareness of inappropriate PPI prescribing has been raised.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to investigate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing (too high dose or no indication) in a consecutive sample of patients in Swiss primary care settings. Our goal was then to evaluate how GPs managed the patients with potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing over 12 months after flagging these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this observational study, 11 GPs from the canton of Bern in Switzerland used their medical records to identify 20 patients who had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks and flagged potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing in their records. After 12 months, we asked the same GPs whether the PPI prescriptions of those patients had changed and, if so, how.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,376 patients consecutively screened, 206 (15%) had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks. Of these 206 patients, 85 (41%) had a potentially inappropriate PPI prescription. Of these 85 patients, 55 (65%) had no indication for PPI, and 30 (35%) had a too-high dose. After one year, only 29 (35%) of the 84 flagged potentially inappropriate PPIs were stopped or reduced. The most frequently mentioned reasons that deprescribing was not possible were a lack of discussion with the patient (no contact or no time), the presence of symptoms requiring the PPI, or the unwillingness of the patient to deprescribe.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the Swiss primary care setting, the rate of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing is high. Having GPs flag potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing did not result in PPI deprescribing in most patients over 12 months. Our findings suggest that more personalised and targeted interventions are necessary to successfully implement the deprescribing of potentially inappropriate PPIs. We see the need to co-design interventions with patients and providers and test behavioural change techniques to enable the deprescribing of inappropriate PPIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":22111,"journal":{"name":"Swiss medical weekly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss medical weekly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57187/smw.2023.40119","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be deprescribed when an indication is lacking or the dose is too high. Academic and media reports have tried to raise awareness and thereby reduce the inappropriate prescribing of PPIs. However, pharmacoepidemiologic studies have shown an unchanged frequency of such inappropriate prescribing over time. Little is known about whether or how general practitioners (GPs) adapt their prescribing practices once their awareness of inappropriate PPI prescribing has been raised.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing (too high dose or no indication) in a consecutive sample of patients in Swiss primary care settings. Our goal was then to evaluate how GPs managed the patients with potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing over 12 months after flagging these patients.

Methods: In this observational study, 11 GPs from the canton of Bern in Switzerland used their medical records to identify 20 patients who had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks and flagged potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing in their records. After 12 months, we asked the same GPs whether the PPI prescriptions of those patients had changed and, if so, how.

Results: Of 1,376 patients consecutively screened, 206 (15%) had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks. Of these 206 patients, 85 (41%) had a potentially inappropriate PPI prescription. Of these 85 patients, 55 (65%) had no indication for PPI, and 30 (35%) had a too-high dose. After one year, only 29 (35%) of the 84 flagged potentially inappropriate PPIs were stopped or reduced. The most frequently mentioned reasons that deprescribing was not possible were a lack of discussion with the patient (no contact or no time), the presence of symptoms requiring the PPI, or the unwillingness of the patient to deprescribe.

Conclusion: In the Swiss primary care setting, the rate of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing is high. Having GPs flag potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing did not result in PPI deprescribing in most patients over 12 months. Our findings suggest that more personalised and targeted interventions are necessary to successfully implement the deprescribing of potentially inappropriate PPIs. We see the need to co-design interventions with patients and providers and test behavioural change techniques to enable the deprescribing of inappropriate PPIs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级保健中不适当的质子泵抑制剂处方——一项有质量圈的观察性研究。
引言:当缺乏指征或剂量过高时,应取消质子泵抑制剂(PPIs)的描述。学术和媒体报道试图提高人们的认识,从而减少PPI的不当处方。然而,药物流行病学研究表明,随着时间的推移,这种不适当处方的频率没有变化。一旦全科医生意识到PPI处方不当,他们是否或如何调整处方做法知之甚少。目的:我们旨在调查瑞士初级保健环境中连续样本患者中潜在的不适当PPI处方(剂量过高或无适应症)的患病率。然后,我们的目标是评估全科医生在标记这些患者后12个月内如何管理可能不适当的PPI处方的患者。方法:在这项观察性研究中,来自瑞士伯尔尼州的11名全科医生使用他们的医疗记录确定了20名服用PPI≥8周的患者,并在他们的记录中标记了可能不合适的PPI处方。12个月后,我们询问了同样的全科医生,这些患者的PPI处方是否发生了变化,如果是,是如何变化的。结果:在1376名连续筛查的患者中,206名(15%)患者的PPI处方持续时间≥8周。在这206名患者中,85名(41%)患者的PPI处方可能不合适。在这85名患者中,55名(65%)没有PPI适应症,30名(35%)剂量过高。一年后,在84个被标记为潜在不适当的PPI中,只有29个(35%)被停止或减少。最常提到的不可能取消描述的原因是缺乏与患者的讨论(没有接触或没有时间)、存在需要PPI的症状或患者不愿意取消描述。结论:在瑞士初级保健环境中,潜在的不适当PPI处方率很高。让全科医生标记可能不合适的PPI处方并没有导致大多数患者在12个月内取消PPI处方。我们的研究结果表明,有必要采取更个性化和更有针对性的干预措施,以成功实施对潜在不适当PPI的描述。我们认为有必要与患者和提供者共同设计干预措施,并测试行为改变技术,以实现对不适当PPI的描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Swiss medical weekly
Swiss medical weekly 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Swiss Medical Weekly accepts for consideration original and review articles from all fields of medicine. The quality of SMW publications is guaranteed by a consistent policy of rigorous single-blind peer review. All editorial decisions are made by research-active academics.
期刊最新文献
Inpatient opioid prescribing patterns and their effect on rehospitalisations: a nested case-control study using data from a Swiss public acute hospital. It has been 30 years since the first alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy was performed. Shake-up in the world of assessment: Impressions from the Ottawa Conference on Assessment from Down Under. Dispensed drugs during pregnancy in outpatient care between 2015 and 2021 in Switzerland: a retrospective analysis of Swiss healthcare claims data. Commentary to the controversy: Should asleep deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease be preferred over the awake approach?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1