BACKGROUND: Prescribing feedback based on aggregated data alone does not give the information needed to improve treatment quality. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a new method, or tool, of presenting prescribing feedback which, combined with guideline recommendations, makes it possible for doctors to judge their own prescribing as good or bad. METHODS: Asthma was chosen as a disease model, as treatment recommendations are readily available published as national and international guidelines. Four mean daily dosage intervals of inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and four mean daily dosage intervals of inhaled steroids were combined into a 4 x 4 matrix. This matrix of 16 combined dosage boxes was presented to 68 Norwegian GPs participating in peer review groups. As a first step, the GPs in the groups reached consensus on what they considered to be appropriate and inappropriate combined dosage intervals of these drugs based on national guideline recommendations and their joint clinical experience. Accordingly, traffic-light colours, green and red, were assigned to the combined dosage boxes in the matrix. Treatments in boxes difficult to judge were coloured yellow. During a 1-year period prior to the consensus meetings, the dispensed inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and inhaled steroids of each of the doctors' patients were recorded at the local pharmacies. As a second step in developing the new method, the number of patients treated within each of the coloured boxes was presented to the GPs in the peer review groups. These combined presentations provided an overview to the whole group, and individually to each GP, of how many patients were actually given appropriate or inappropriate treatment according to their own agreed upon standard. RESULTS: The GPs categorized 34% of 1122 evaluated patients receiving inhaled short-acting beta-agonists or inhaled steroids as treated inappropriately during the 1-year registration period. Appropriate treatment was given to 47% of the patients, and in 19% of the cases the treatment was difficult to evaluate. CONCLUSIONS: A method has been developed enabling GPs to categorize prescribing information into good (green), bad (red) and difficult to judge (yellow) treatment qualities, based on guideline recommendations and clinical experience. The actual prescribing data for each GP were labelled according to the same colour scheme, thus revealing to each GP his or her own actual prescribing compared with their own treatment standard, yielding information and motivation for quality improvement efforts.
BACKGROUND: Prescribing feedback based on aggregated data alone does not give the information needed to improve treatment quality. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a new method, or tool, of presenting prescribing feedback which, combined with guideline recommendations, makes it possible for doctors to judge their own prescribing as good or bad. METHODS: Asthma was chosen as a disease model, as treatment recommendations are readily available published as national and international guidelines. Four mean daily dosage intervals of inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and four mean daily dosage intervals of inhaled steroids were combined into a 4 x 4 matrix. This matrix of 16 combined dosage boxes was presented to 68 Norwegian GPs participating in peer review groups. As a first step, the GPs in the groups reached consensus on what they considered to be appropriate and inappropriate combined dosage intervals of these drugs based on national guideline recommendations and their joint clinical experience. Accordingly, traffic-light colours, green and red, were assigned to the combined dosage boxes in the matrix. Treatments in boxes difficult to judge were coloured yellow. During a 1-year period prior to the consensus meetings, the dispensed inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and inhaled steroids of each of the doctors' patients were recorded at the local pharmacies. As a second step in developing the new method, the number of patients treated within each of the coloured boxes was presented to the GPs in the peer review groups. These combined presentations provided an overview to the whole group, and individually to each GP, of how many patients were actually given appropriate or inappropriate treatment according to their own agreed upon standard. RESULTS: The GPs categorized 34% of 1122 evaluated patients receiving inhaled short-acting beta-agonists or inhaled steroids as treated inappropriately during the 1-year registration period. Appropriate treatment was given to 47% of the patients, and in 19% of the cases the treatment was difficult to evaluate. CONCLUSIONS: A method has been developed enabling GPs to categorize prescribing information into good (green), bad (red) and difficult to judge (yellow) treatment qualities, based on guideline recommendations and clinical experience. The actual prescribing data for each GP were labelled according to the same colour scheme, thus revealing to each GP his or her own actual prescribing compared with their own treatment standard, yielding information and motivation for quality improvement efforts.
Authors: Veronika J Wirtz; Hans V Hogerzeil; Andrew L Gray; Maryam Bigdeli; Cornelis P de Joncheere; Margaret A Ewen; Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt; Sun Jing; Vera L Luiza; Regina M Mbindyo; Helene Möller; Corrina Moucheraud; Bernard Pécoul; Lembit Rägo; Arash Rashidian; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Peter N Stephens; Yot Teerawattananon; Ellen F M 't Hoen; Anita K Wagner; Prashant Yadav; Michael R Reich Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321