P. Lagerlov et al., Improving doctors' prescribing behaviour through reflection on guidelines and prescription feedback: a randomised controlled study, QUAL HEAL C, 9(3), 2000, pp. 159-165
Background-It is difficult to put research findings into clinical practice
by either guidelines or prescription feedback.
Aim-To study the effect on the quality of prescribing by a combined interve
ntion of providing individual feedback and deriving quality criteria using
guideline recommendations in peer review groups.
Methods-199 general practitioners in 32 groups were randomised to participa
te in peer review meetings related to either asthma or urinary tract infect
ions. The dispensing by the participating doctors of antiasthmatic drugs an
d antibiotics during the year before the intervention period provided the b
asis for prescription feedback. The intervention feedback was designed to d
escribe the treatment given in relation to recommendations in the national
guidelines. In each group the doctors agreed on quality criteria for their
own treatment of the corresponding diseases based on these recommendations.
Comparison of their prescription feedback with their own quality criteria
gave each doctor the proportion of acceptable and unacceptable treatments.
Main outcome measure-Difference in the prescribing behaviour between the ye
ar before and the year after the intervention.
Results-Before intervention the mean proportions of acceptably treated asth
ma patients in the asthma group and urinary tract infection (control) group
were 28% and 27%, respectively. The mean proportion of acceptably treated
patients in the asthma group was increased by 6% relative to the control gr
oup; this difference was statistically significant. The mean proportions of
acceptable treatments of urinary tract infection before intervention in th
e urinary tract infection group and asthma (control) group were 12% for bot
h groups which increased by 13% in the urinary tract infection group relati
ve to the control group. Relative to the mean pre-intervention values this
represented an improvement in treatment of 21% in the asthma group and 108%
in the urinary tract infection group.
Conclusions-Deriving quality criteria of prescribing by discussing guidelin
e recommendations gave the doctors a basis for judging their treatment of i
ndividual patients as acceptable or unacceptable. Presented with feedback o
n their own prescribing, they learned what they did right and wrong. This p
rovided a foundation for improvement and the process thus instigated result
ed in the doctors providing better quality patient care.