AIM: To describe how quantitative data obtained from applying a series of indicators for preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in the electronic patient record in English general practice can be used to facilitate changes aimed at helping to improve medicines management. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary discussion forum held at each practice facilitated by a clinical researcher. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Eight English general practices. OUTCOME MEASURES: Issues discussed at the multidisciplinary discussion forum and ideas generated by practices for tackling these issues. Progress made by practices after 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: A number of clinical issues were raised by the practices and ideas for moving them forward were discussed. The issues that were easiest and most straightforward to deal with (for example, reviewing specific patient groups) were quickly addressed in most instances. Practices were less likely to have taken steps towards addressing issues at a systems level. CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from applying PDRM indicators can be used to facilitate practice-wide discussion on medicines management. Different practices place different priority levels on the issues they wish to pursue. Individual practice "ownership" of these, together with having a central committed figure at the practice, is key to the success of the process.
AIM: To describe how quantitative data obtained from applying a series of indicators for preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in the electronic patient record in English general practice can be used to facilitate changes aimed at helping to improve medicines management. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary discussion forum held at each practice facilitated by a clinical researcher. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Eight English general practices. OUTCOME MEASURES: Issues discussed at the multidisciplinary discussion forum and ideas generated by practices for tackling these issues. Progress made by practices after 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: A number of clinical issues were raised by the practices and ideas for moving them forward were discussed. The issues that were easiest and most straightforward to deal with (for example, reviewing specific patient groups) were quickly addressed in most instances. Practices were less likely to have taken steps towards addressing issues at a systems level. CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from applying PDRM indicators can be used to facilitate practice-wide discussion on medicines management. Different practices place different priority levels on the issues they wish to pursue. Individual practice "ownership" of these, together with having a central committed figure at the practice, is key to the success of the process.
Authors: S Schneeweiss; M Göttler; J Hasford; W Swoboda; M Hippius; A K Hoffmann; A K Riethling; J Krappweis Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Krska; J A Cromarty; F Arris; D Jamieson; D Hansford; P R Duffus; G Downie; D G Seymour Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Munir Pirmohamed; Sally James; Shaun Meakin; Chris Green; Andrew K Scott; Thomas J Walley; Keith Farrar; B Kevin Park; Alasdair M Breckenridge Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-07-03