Cargando…

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Avery, Anthony J, Rodgers, Sarah, Cantrill, Judith A, Armstrong, Sarah, Cresswell, Kathrin, Eden, Martin, Elliott, Rachel A, Howard, Rachel, Kendrick, Denise, Morris, Caroline J, Prescott, Robin J, Swanwick, Glen, Franklin, Matthew, Putman, Koen, Boyd, Matthew, Sheikh, Aziz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lancet Publishing Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5
_version_ 1782229781294612480
author Avery, Anthony J
Rodgers, Sarah
Cantrill, Judith A
Armstrong, Sarah
Cresswell, Kathrin
Eden, Martin
Elliott, Rachel A
Howard, Rachel
Kendrick, Denise
Morris, Caroline J
Prescott, Robin J
Swanwick, Glen
Franklin, Matthew
Putman, Koen
Boyd, Matthew
Sheikh, Aziz
author_facet Avery, Anthony J
Rodgers, Sarah
Cantrill, Judith A
Armstrong, Sarah
Cresswell, Kathrin
Eden, Martin
Elliott, Rachel A
Howard, Rachel
Kendrick, Denise
Morris, Caroline J
Prescott, Robin J
Swanwick, Glen
Franklin, Matthew
Putman, Koen
Boyd, Matthew
Sheikh, Aziz
author_sort Avery, Anthony J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. METHODS: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. FINDINGS: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38–0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58–0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34–0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. FUNDING: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3328846
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Lancet Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33288462012-04-23 A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis Avery, Anthony J Rodgers, Sarah Cantrill, Judith A Armstrong, Sarah Cresswell, Kathrin Eden, Martin Elliott, Rachel A Howard, Rachel Kendrick, Denise Morris, Caroline J Prescott, Robin J Swanwick, Glen Franklin, Matthew Putman, Koen Boyd, Matthew Sheikh, Aziz Lancet Articles BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. METHODS: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. FINDINGS: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38–0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58–0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34–0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. FUNDING: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England. Lancet Publishing Group 2012-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3328846/ /pubmed/22357106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5 Text en © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/supplementalterms1.0) .
spellingShingle Articles
Avery, Anthony J
Rodgers, Sarah
Cantrill, Judith A
Armstrong, Sarah
Cresswell, Kathrin
Eden, Martin
Elliott, Rachel A
Howard, Rachel
Kendrick, Denise
Morris, Caroline J
Prescott, Robin J
Swanwick, Glen
Franklin, Matthew
Putman, Koen
Boyd, Matthew
Sheikh, Aziz
A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_full A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_fullStr A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_full_unstemmed A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_short A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_sort pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (pincer): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5
work_keys_str_mv AT averyanthonyj apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT rodgerssarah apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT cantrilljuditha apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT armstrongsarah apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT cresswellkathrin apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT edenmartin apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT elliottrachela apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT howardrachel apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT kendrickdenise apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT morriscarolinej apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT prescottrobinj apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT swanwickglen apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT franklinmatthew apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT putmankoen apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT boydmatthew apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT sheikhaziz apharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT averyanthonyj pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT rodgerssarah pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT cantrilljuditha pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT armstrongsarah pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT cresswellkathrin pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT edenmartin pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT elliottrachela pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT howardrachel pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT kendrickdenise pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT morriscarolinej pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT prescottrobinj pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT swanwickglen pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT franklinmatthew pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT putmankoen pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT boydmatthew pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT sheikhaziz pharmacistledinformationtechnologyinterventionformedicationerrorspinceramulticentreclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialandcosteffectivenessanalysis