Do practice guidelines augment drug utilisation review?

Liability Implications of Innovative Drug Therapy: The Significance of Clinical Guidelines in Establishing the Legal Standard of Care

The use of the clinical practice guideline (CPG) has become widespread in contemporary health care. For some health care providers, there may be a perceived “safe haven” from liability for strict compliance with a relevant CPG. Pointing to an objective standard, such as a CPG, the health care provider may feel secure in defending care that was provided to a patient, when called to account for a bad outcome. The benefit of any CPG is that it standardizes practice at an acceptably high level. The complimentary risk of a CPG is that it may stifle innovation based on newly discovered or newly appreciated data that were not considered when the CPG was developed. The trend in malpractice law is to recognize a CPG as relevant to the applicable standard of care, but not to equate a CPG with the standard of care. In fact, an outdated CPG may fail to reflect the standard of care, if new scientific or medical knowledge has been validated. The health care provider who adheres to an outdated CPG is at greater risk of liability than the health care provider who spurns the outdated CPG in favor of innovative practice based on valid new information. Innovation, as opposed to experimentation, is recognized as a necessary component of competent health care. The health care provider who adheres to outdated traditional medicine, spurning new developments validated by evidence, has clearly expanded exposure to liability.

Intentions and statins prescribing: can the theory of planned behaviour explain physician behaviour in following guideline recommendations?

OBJECTIVES

Few studies have assessed the utility of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) in explaining physicians' behaviour. This study uses the TPB for explaining physicians' implementation of guidelines' prescribing recommendations.

METHODS

We developed the questionnaire via conducting qualitative interviews and pilot study. A random sample of 155 general practitioners (GPs) in England participated in the study. Prescribing and practice data were collected from routine sources. We analysed the data using regression methods.

RESULTS

TPB explained 48% of variation in reported intentions to follow guidelines' prescribing recommendations. Attitude and perceived controls, but not subjective norms, were predictors of variation in intentions. TPB belief variables significantly explained variation in effective and efficient prescribing indicators (14% and 12% respectively). Normative, control and behavioural beliefs contributed to the models. Only for efficient prescribing, the TPB items retained their significance in presence of demographic variables. We found no significant relationship between intention and prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

TPB helped understanding of GPs prescribing behaviour and their intentions to implement a clinical guideline. Beliefs (e.g. normative beliefs) were better predictors of behaviour than the composite scores for their corresponding higher-level construct (e.g. indirect subjective norm). TPB models should be tested alongside randomized trials to test the assumption of causality that change in beliefs ultimately results in change in behaviour.

Falling on stony ground? A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines' prescribing recommendations in primary care

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore key themes for the implementation of guidelines' prescribing recommendations.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposeful sample of 25 participants in British primary care in late 2000 and early 2001. Thirteen were academics in primary care and 12 were non-academic GPs. We asked about implementation of guidelines for five conditions (asthma, coronary heart disease prevention, depression, epilepsy, menorrhagia) ensuring variation in complexity, role of prescribing in patient management, GP role in prescribing and GP awareness of guidelines. We used the Theory of Planned Behaviour to design the study and the framework method for the analysis.

RESULTS

Seven themes explain implementation of prescribing recommendations in primary care: credibility of content, credibility of source, presentation, influential people, organisational factors, disease characteristics, and dissemination strategy. Change in recommendations may hinder implementation. This is important since the development of evidence-based guidelines requires change in recommendations. Practitioners do not have a universal view or a common understanding of valid 'evidence'. Credibility is improved if national bodies develop primary care guidelines with less input from secondary care and industry, and with simple and systematic presentation. Dissemination should target GPs' perceived needs, improve ownership and get things right in the first implementation attempt. Enforcement strategies should not be used routinely.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs were critical of guidelines' development, relevance and implementation. Guidelines should be clear about changes they propose. Future studies should quantify the relationship between evidence base of recommendations and implementation, and between change in recommendations and implementation. Small but important costs and side effects of implementing guidelines should be measured in evaluative studies.

Survey of hospitals for guidelines, policies, and protocols for anticoagulants

PURPOSE

A survey of community hospitals that are part of a national group purchasing organization (GPO) was conducted to assess the formulary status of currently available anticoagulants, assess the current status of anticoagulant prescribing guidelines and the existing scope of such guidelines, and identify perceptions about the appropriateness of the use of anticoagulants in community hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

A Web-based survey of acute care hospitals that were members of a leading health care resource management and GPO was conducted. The survey was sent to 224 hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 224 hospitals, 127 participated in the survey, a response rate of 59.6%. Warfarin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), and enoxaparin were the anticoagulants most commonly included (>80%) on the hospitals' drug formularies. Guidelines relating to the use of UFH and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) existed in approximately 87.4% and 55.1% of responding hospitals, respectively, followed by warfarin and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) (approximately 44.1% and 30.7%, respectively). Among hospitals without guidelines, 78.2%, 72.1%, 65.4%, 50.0%, and 41.4% reported that such guidelines would be useful if they included LMWHs, warfarin, DTIs, UFH, and fondaparinux, respectively. Guidelines for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), appropriate drug selection, and dosing for VTE prophylaxis and treatment existed in 59.8%, 53.5%, and 43.3% of the hospitals, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The study found that a sizable percentage of the responding community hospitals did not have guidelines, protocols, or policies related to the use of anticoagulants. Further, those hospitals without such guidelines commonly reported a need for clinical practice guidelines.

Hospital guidelines for use of low-molecular-weight heparins

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of guidelines for initial use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and other anticoagulants in acute-care hospitals that are part of a national group purchasing organization (GPO).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search (1970-December 2001) was conducted to identify evidence on the efficacy of various anticoagulants for initial therapy in deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and in treatment of acute coronary syndrome. A group consensus method was then used to develop guidelines. Guidelines were reviewed and revised by an internal expert panel as well as an external expert panel. Final guidelines were disseminated to GPO members and assistance was provided with implementation at the local level.

RESULTS

The final set of guidelines is described. The guidelines are organized based on recommended therapeutic options for each indication. For each option, consensus opinion is provided on the level of evidence that exists in the literature, comparisons of cost and convenience, and additional dosing information. The guidelines were disseminated along with supporting material to interested GPO member hospitals, and teleconferences were held to facilitate implementation at the local level. The guidelines were initially implemented at 18 hospitals across the country.

CONCLUSIONS

The process by which these guidelines were developed, plus the final set of guidelines, may be useful to hospitals and healthcare systems contemplating or engaged in a similar effort with this class of drugs.

Drug utilization reviews of oral quinolone, cephalosporin, and macrolide use in nonacute care: a systematic review

Drug utilization review (DUR) is a tool for monitoring the appropriateness of physicians' prescribing patterns. The present systematic overview was undertaken to determine the extent of appropriate use of oral quinolones, cephalosporins, and macrolides in nonacute-care settings in North America reported in published DUR studies. Potentially relevant DURs conducted since 1987 were retrieved from an electronic search of 6 databases (augmented by manual searches of bibliographies of appropriate articles) and from personal communications with local experts. Independent reviewers applied objective criteria to select the DURs for inclusion. Quality assessments were performed by 4 independent reviewers using the Edmonton Quality Assessment Tool for Drug Utilization Reviews, an instrument developed to assess the potential for systematic bias in a DUR. Data from the studies included were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers using a standard data-collection form. Twelve of 587 (2.0%) articles met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies targeted the appropriateness of prescriptions for ciprofloxacin (appropriateness range, 5% to 95%), 3 included cephalosporins (range, 0% to 100%), and 2 examined erythromycin (40%). There were 2 primary reasons for a rating of inappropriate: (1) the prescription was not first-line therapy, or (2) there was insufficient documentation in the patient record. The designation inappropriate did not mean that the drug did not benefit the patient. Of the 4 intervention-based DURs, 1 study showed a significant improvement in appropriate use. Because of heterogeneity in study design, delivery of interventions, and outcome assessment, a pooled estimate of effect was not derived. Four studies estimated the cost of inappropriate prescribing to the institutional study site, which ranged from $20,500 to $173,359 annually; however, these estimates cannot be generalized because of various limitations. When the 12 studies were assessed for methodologic quality, 1 study was rated as high, 7 as moderate, and 4 as low. Levels of prescribing appropriateness reported in the DUR literature should be interpreted cautiously. The DUR studies included in this review varied greatly in the methodologic rigor applied to sample selection, standardized data collection, application of standardized screening criteria, and validated data analysis.