An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice

why is there variation in prescribing practices?

Aileen Grant, Frank Sullivan, Jon Dowell

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    14 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Prescribing is a core activity for general practitioners, yet significant variation in the quality of prescribing has been reported. This suggests there may be room for improvement in the application of the current best research evidence. There has been substantial investment in technologies and interventions to address this issue, but effect sizes so far have been small to moderate. This suggests that prescribing is a decision-making process that is not sufficiently understood. By understanding more about prescribing processes and the implementation of research evidence, variation may more easily be understood and more effective interventions proposed.

    Methods: An ethnographic study in three Scottish general practices with diverse organizational characteristics. Practices were ranked by their performance against Audit Scotland prescribing quality indicators, incorporating established best research evidence. Two practices of high prescribing quality and one practice of low prescribing quality were recruited. Participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and a review of practice documentation were employed.

    Results: Practices ranked as high prescribing quality consistently made and applied macro and micro prescribing decisions, whereas the low-ranking practice only made micro prescribing decisions. Macro prescribing decisions were collective, policy decisions made considering research evidence in light of the average patient, one disease, condition, or drug. Micro prescribing decisions were made in consultation with the patient considering their views, preferences, circumstances and other conditions (if necessary).

    Although micro prescribing can operate independently, the implementation of evidence-based, quality prescribing was attributable to an interdependent relationship. Macro prescribing policy enabled prescribing decisions to be based on scientific evidence and applied consistently where possible. Ultimately, this influenced prescribing decisions that occur at the micro level in consultation with patients.

    Conclusion: General practitioners in the higher prescribing quality practices made two different 'types' of prescribing decision; macro and micro. Macro prescribing informs micro prescribing and without a macro basis to draw upon the low-ranked practice had no effective mechanism to engage with, reflect on and implement relevant evidence. Practices that recognize these two levels of decision making about prescribing are more likely to be able to implement higher quality evidence.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number72
    Number of pages14
    JournalImplementation Science
    Volume8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 21 Jun 2013

    Keywords

    • GPS DECISION
    • RANDOMIZED-TRIAL
    • Ethnographic
    • QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
    • CLINICAL AUTONOMY
    • Quality
    • General practice
    • HEALTH-CARE
    • DOCTORS PERCEPTIONS
    • PRIMARY-CARE
    • PATIENT SAFETY
    • PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
    • Primary care
    • Prescribing
    • SHARED DECISION-MAKING
    • Qualitative

    Cite this

    @article{87ffdaf0805c49fa9c56d873417c94f6,
    title = "An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices?",
    abstract = "Background: Prescribing is a core activity for general practitioners, yet significant variation in the quality of prescribing has been reported. This suggests there may be room for improvement in the application of the current best research evidence. There has been substantial investment in technologies and interventions to address this issue, but effect sizes so far have been small to moderate. This suggests that prescribing is a decision-making process that is not sufficiently understood. By understanding more about prescribing processes and the implementation of research evidence, variation may more easily be understood and more effective interventions proposed.Methods: An ethnographic study in three Scottish general practices with diverse organizational characteristics. Practices were ranked by their performance against Audit Scotland prescribing quality indicators, incorporating established best research evidence. Two practices of high prescribing quality and one practice of low prescribing quality were recruited. Participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and a review of practice documentation were employed.Results: Practices ranked as high prescribing quality consistently made and applied macro and micro prescribing decisions, whereas the low-ranking practice only made micro prescribing decisions. Macro prescribing decisions were collective, policy decisions made considering research evidence in light of the average patient, one disease, condition, or drug. Micro prescribing decisions were made in consultation with the patient considering their views, preferences, circumstances and other conditions (if necessary).Although micro prescribing can operate independently, the implementation of evidence-based, quality prescribing was attributable to an interdependent relationship. Macro prescribing policy enabled prescribing decisions to be based on scientific evidence and applied consistently where possible. Ultimately, this influenced prescribing decisions that occur at the micro level in consultation with patients.Conclusion: General practitioners in the higher prescribing quality practices made two different 'types' of prescribing decision; macro and micro. Macro prescribing informs micro prescribing and without a macro basis to draw upon the low-ranked practice had no effective mechanism to engage with, reflect on and implement relevant evidence. Practices that recognize these two levels of decision making about prescribing are more likely to be able to implement higher quality evidence.",
    keywords = "GPS DECISION, RANDOMIZED-TRIAL, Ethnographic, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, CLINICAL AUTONOMY, Quality, General practice, HEALTH-CARE, DOCTORS PERCEPTIONS, PRIMARY-CARE, PATIENT SAFETY, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, Primary care, Prescribing, SHARED DECISION-MAKING, Qualitative",
    author = "Aileen Grant and Frank Sullivan and Jon Dowell",
    year = "2013",
    month = "6",
    day = "21",
    doi = "10.1186/1748-5908-8-72",
    language = "English",
    volume = "8",
    journal = "Implementation Science",
    issn = "1748-5908",
    publisher = "BioMed Central",

    }

    An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice : why is there variation in prescribing practices? / Grant, Aileen; Sullivan, Frank; Dowell, Jon.

    In: Implementation Science, Vol. 8, 72, 21.06.2013.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice

    T2 - why is there variation in prescribing practices?

    AU - Grant, Aileen

    AU - Sullivan, Frank

    AU - Dowell, Jon

    PY - 2013/6/21

    Y1 - 2013/6/21

    N2 - Background: Prescribing is a core activity for general practitioners, yet significant variation in the quality of prescribing has been reported. This suggests there may be room for improvement in the application of the current best research evidence. There has been substantial investment in technologies and interventions to address this issue, but effect sizes so far have been small to moderate. This suggests that prescribing is a decision-making process that is not sufficiently understood. By understanding more about prescribing processes and the implementation of research evidence, variation may more easily be understood and more effective interventions proposed.Methods: An ethnographic study in three Scottish general practices with diverse organizational characteristics. Practices were ranked by their performance against Audit Scotland prescribing quality indicators, incorporating established best research evidence. Two practices of high prescribing quality and one practice of low prescribing quality were recruited. Participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and a review of practice documentation were employed.Results: Practices ranked as high prescribing quality consistently made and applied macro and micro prescribing decisions, whereas the low-ranking practice only made micro prescribing decisions. Macro prescribing decisions were collective, policy decisions made considering research evidence in light of the average patient, one disease, condition, or drug. Micro prescribing decisions were made in consultation with the patient considering their views, preferences, circumstances and other conditions (if necessary).Although micro prescribing can operate independently, the implementation of evidence-based, quality prescribing was attributable to an interdependent relationship. Macro prescribing policy enabled prescribing decisions to be based on scientific evidence and applied consistently where possible. Ultimately, this influenced prescribing decisions that occur at the micro level in consultation with patients.Conclusion: General practitioners in the higher prescribing quality practices made two different 'types' of prescribing decision; macro and micro. Macro prescribing informs micro prescribing and without a macro basis to draw upon the low-ranked practice had no effective mechanism to engage with, reflect on and implement relevant evidence. Practices that recognize these two levels of decision making about prescribing are more likely to be able to implement higher quality evidence.

    AB - Background: Prescribing is a core activity for general practitioners, yet significant variation in the quality of prescribing has been reported. This suggests there may be room for improvement in the application of the current best research evidence. There has been substantial investment in technologies and interventions to address this issue, but effect sizes so far have been small to moderate. This suggests that prescribing is a decision-making process that is not sufficiently understood. By understanding more about prescribing processes and the implementation of research evidence, variation may more easily be understood and more effective interventions proposed.Methods: An ethnographic study in three Scottish general practices with diverse organizational characteristics. Practices were ranked by their performance against Audit Scotland prescribing quality indicators, incorporating established best research evidence. Two practices of high prescribing quality and one practice of low prescribing quality were recruited. Participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and a review of practice documentation were employed.Results: Practices ranked as high prescribing quality consistently made and applied macro and micro prescribing decisions, whereas the low-ranking practice only made micro prescribing decisions. Macro prescribing decisions were collective, policy decisions made considering research evidence in light of the average patient, one disease, condition, or drug. Micro prescribing decisions were made in consultation with the patient considering their views, preferences, circumstances and other conditions (if necessary).Although micro prescribing can operate independently, the implementation of evidence-based, quality prescribing was attributable to an interdependent relationship. Macro prescribing policy enabled prescribing decisions to be based on scientific evidence and applied consistently where possible. Ultimately, this influenced prescribing decisions that occur at the micro level in consultation with patients.Conclusion: General practitioners in the higher prescribing quality practices made two different 'types' of prescribing decision; macro and micro. Macro prescribing informs micro prescribing and without a macro basis to draw upon the low-ranked practice had no effective mechanism to engage with, reflect on and implement relevant evidence. Practices that recognize these two levels of decision making about prescribing are more likely to be able to implement higher quality evidence.

    KW - GPS DECISION

    KW - RANDOMIZED-TRIAL

    KW - Ethnographic

    KW - QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

    KW - CLINICAL AUTONOMY

    KW - Quality

    KW - General practice

    KW - HEALTH-CARE

    KW - DOCTORS PERCEPTIONS

    KW - PRIMARY-CARE

    KW - PATIENT SAFETY

    KW - PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

    KW - Primary care

    KW - Prescribing

    KW - SHARED DECISION-MAKING

    KW - Qualitative

    U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-8-72

    DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-8-72

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    JO - Implementation Science

    JF - Implementation Science

    SN - 1748-5908

    M1 - 72

    ER -