Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review

A qualitative interview study in UK primary care

Polly Duncan (Lead / Corresponding author), Christie Cabral, Deborah McCahon, Bruce Guthrie, Matthew J. Ridd

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process. Aim To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK. Design and setting Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPS and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017. Method Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results In total, 13 GPS and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPS and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPS, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPS, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work. Conclusion Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E190-E198
Number of pages9
JournalBritish Journal of General Practice
Volume69
Issue number680
Early online date11 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Pharmacists
Primary Health Care
Interviews
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
England
Delivery of Health Care
Safety
Patient Participation
Scotland
Workload
General Practice
Pressure

Keywords

  • Care of older people
  • Medication review
  • Polypharmacy
  • Primary health care
  • Qualitative research

Cite this

Duncan, Polly ; Cabral, Christie ; McCahon, Deborah ; Guthrie, Bruce ; Ridd, Matthew J. / Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review : A qualitative interview study in UK primary care. In: British Journal of General Practice. 2019 ; Vol. 69, No. 680. pp. E190-E198.
@article{529d150e5f3a4585a2838f4214d3deda,
title = "Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review: A qualitative interview study in UK primary care",
abstract = "Background Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process. Aim To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK. Design and setting Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPS and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017. Method Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results In total, 13 GPS and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPS and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPS, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPS, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work. Conclusion Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.",
keywords = "Care of older people, Medication review, Polypharmacy, Primary health care, Qualitative research",
author = "Polly Duncan and Christie Cabral and Deborah McCahon and Bruce Guthrie and Ridd, {Matthew J.}",
note = "This research was funded by the Scientific Foundation Board of the Royal College of General Practitioners (reference number: SFB-2016-25) and the Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative. The 3D Study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (project number: 12/130/15).",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.3399/bjgp19X701321",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "E190--E198",
journal = "British Journal of General Practice",
issn = "0960-1643",
publisher = "Royal College of General Practitioners",
number = "680",

}

Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review : A qualitative interview study in UK primary care. / Duncan, Polly (Lead / Corresponding author); Cabral, Christie; McCahon, Deborah; Guthrie, Bruce; Ridd, Matthew J.

In: British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 69, No. 680, 03.2019, p. E190-E198.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review

T2 - A qualitative interview study in UK primary care

AU - Duncan, Polly

AU - Cabral, Christie

AU - McCahon, Deborah

AU - Guthrie, Bruce

AU - Ridd, Matthew J.

N1 - This research was funded by the Scientific Foundation Board of the Royal College of General Practitioners (reference number: SFB-2016-25) and the Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative. The 3D Study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (project number: 12/130/15).

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Background Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process. Aim To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK. Design and setting Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPS and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017. Method Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results In total, 13 GPS and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPS and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPS, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPS, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work. Conclusion Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.

AB - Background Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process. Aim To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK. Design and setting Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPS and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017. Method Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results In total, 13 GPS and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPS and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPS, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPS, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work. Conclusion Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.

KW - Care of older people

KW - Medication review

KW - Polypharmacy

KW - Primary health care

KW - Qualitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062585091&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3399/bjgp19X701321

DO - 10.3399/bjgp19X701321

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - E190-E198

JO - British Journal of General Practice

JF - British Journal of General Practice

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 680

ER -