Literature DB >> 8762744

Influences on prescribing in non-fundholding general practices.

M P Eccles1, J Soutter, D N Bateman, M Campbell, J M Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The experience from general practice fundholding suggests that financial incentives may influence prescribing; guidelines and hospital prescribing are two other suggested influences. AIM: A study was undertaken to establish general practitioners' attitudes to a financial prescribing incentive scheme, the presence and use of guidelines, and the influence of prescribing initiated within secondary care.
METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey of non-fundholding general practices in the former Northern Region was conducted.
RESULTS: Practices' thinking and subsequent decisions about the incentive prescribing scheme were most often influenced by discussions within the practice (45%). Those practices that achieved their savings under the incentive scheme were less likely than those not achieving savings to feel that the target was not achievable, the time scale was unacceptable, and that the philosophy behind the scheme was unacceptable. Forty-five per cent of practices received advice from neither a medical nor a pharmaceutical adviser; 27% of practices received advice from both, 12% from a medical adviser only and 16% from a pharmaceutical adviser only. Of the practices that tried to make their target savings, 91% intended to increase generic prescribing; fewer than one-third of practices mentioned any other measure. Prescribing guidelines were reported by a minority of practices, although reported rates of use were high when these were present. Clinical guidelines for three conditions, asthma, diabetes and hypertension, were present in more than 50% of practices; 25% of practices had no clinical guidelines. Hospital prescribing was reported as 'always' or 'usually' influencing prescribing for diabetes by 57% of respondents, ischaemic heart disease by 55%, peptic ulceration by 49%, asthma by 42% and hypertension by 39%.
CONCLUSIONS: General practitioner prescribing is influenced by a complex web of factors, with no single factor pre-eminent. To understand this area further, there is a need to take each of these areas and ascertain the match between doctors' perceptions and actual practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8762744      PMCID: PMC1239636     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  5 in total

1.  The UK indicative prescribing scheme: background and operation.

Authors:  J Bligh; T Walley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Setting standards of prescribing performance in primary care: use of a consensus group of general practitioners and application of standards to practices in the north of England.

Authors:  D N Bateman; M Eccles; M Campbell; J Soutter; S J Roberts; J M Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Effect of fundholding and indicative prescribing schemes on general practitioners' prescribing costs.

Authors:  J Bradlow; A Coulter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-11-06

4.  General practice fundholding: observations on prescribing patterns and costs using the defined daily dose method.

Authors:  M Maxwell; D Heaney; J G Howie; S Noble
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-11-06

5.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice.

Authors:  A D Oxman; M A Thomson; D A Davis; R B Haynes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

  5 in total
  6 in total

1.  A prescribing incentive scheme for non-fundholding general practices: an observational study.

Authors:  D N Bateman; M Campbell; L J Donaldson; S J Roberts; J M Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-31

2.  Prescribing behaviour in general practice: the impact of promoting therapeutically equivalent cheaper medicines.

Authors:  S J Roberts; D N Bateman; J M Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Reducing community dyspepsia drug costs: a controlled trial.

Authors:  R M Valori; C M Brown; P Strangeways; M Bradburn
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Changing clinical practice: views about the management of adult asthma.

Authors:  S Dawson; K Sutherland; S Dopson; R Miller
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-12

5.  A qualitative comparative investigation of variation in general practitioners' prescribing patterns.

Authors:  Chrys Jaye; Murray Tilyard
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Regional variation and adherence to guidelines for drug treatment of asthma.

Authors:  Marianne Heibert Arnlind; Björn Wettermark; Mika Nokela; Paul Hjemdahl; Clas Rehnberg; Eva Wikström Jonsson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.953

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.