Hormone replacement therapy: a survey of Ontario physicians' prescribing practices

BACKGROUND: Although much has been written about hormone replacement therapy (HRT), there are few clearcut recommendations on its use. The purpose of this study was to determine Ontario physicians'' patterns of and reasons for prescribing HRT, their use of pretreatment investigations and their surveillance of HRT users, and to determine whether physicians'' reported practice is consistent with existing recommendations. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a nonproportional stratified sample of 327 Ontario physicians (23.9% gynecologists, 76.1% general practitioners/family physicians [GP/FPs]). Outcome measures were ranking of reasons for prescribing HRT, nature of preliminary testing, regimens prescribed, duration of HRT and frequency of follow-up. RESULTS: The response rate was 60.9% overall (70.9% of the gynecologists, 58.3% of the GP/FPs). Prevention of osteoporosis was reported by 97.4% as an important or very important reason for prescribing HRT; prevention of coronary artery disease was important or very important for 89.3%. When considering whether or not to prescribe HRT, 97.3% stated that breast cancer was an important or very important factor. When presented with hypothetical cases, 97.0% stated that they would prescribe combined estrogen-progestin for a symptomatic woman with an intact uterus; 13.6% stated that they would do so for a woman with no uterus. Most reported that they would prescribe HRT for 12 or more years (73.3%) and would follow up patients every 1 to 2 years (70.6%). INTERPRETATION: Despite controversy about HRT in the published literature, the Ontario physicians surveyed reported similar reasons and patterns of prescribing, pretreatment investigations, and surveillance of postmenopausal women using HRT. These results suggest that Ontario physicians'' knowledge about HRT is consistent with recommendations in the published literature.     

Decision making by general practitioners in diagnosis and management of lower urinary tract symptoms in women.

OBJECTIVE--To identify factors influencing decision making by general practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in women. SETTING--Two suburban London general practices. SUBJECTS--Women presenting to their family doctor with lower urinary tract symptoms. DESIGN--After each consultation the doctor completed a questionnaire on presenting symptoms; clinical examination; investigations undertaken; presence of psychological, social, and menstrual problems; patients'' requests for antibiotics; antibiotic prescribing; knowledge of the patient; attitude towards the consultation; and any other factors assisting in diagnosis and management. Finally, doctors predicted the presence or absence of clinically important bacteriuria. Each woman completed a demographic questionnaire, the 12 item general health questionnaire, and the modified menstrual distress questionnaire, after which each provided a clean catch midstream urine sample. Case notes were examined for information on previous reports of results of urine analysis. RESULTS--When the general practitioners did not know the patients well they were 4.5 times more likely to assume that there was a clinically important infection. When they knew the patient well, they were four times more likely to make a correct prediction of the test result and 12 times less likely to prescribe antibiotics. Doctors were five times more likely to predict the test result correctly in patients from social classes 1 and 2 and were six times more likely to prescribe antibiotics for the older women in the sample. CONCLUSIONS--In women presenting with urinary tract symptoms, these family practitioners seemed to take no particular regard of physical, psychological, or menstrual factors in making their assessments. They were most accurate in their prediction of the result of urine analysis and least likely to prescribe antibiotics when they had a good general knowledge of the patient. Which came first, the diagnosis or prescribing, is difficult to say and probably differed in individual cases. Doctors tended to be more conservative in their management of older women and those whom they knew less well.     

Nationwide study of decisions concerning the end of life in general practice in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE--To gain insight into decisions made in general practice about the end of life. DESIGN--Study I: interviews with 405 physicians. Study II: analysis of death certificates with data obtained on 5197 cases in which decisions about the end of life may have been made. Study III: prospective study with doctors from study I: questionnaires used to collect information about 2257 deaths. The information was representative for all deaths in the Netherlands. RESULTS--Over two fifths of all patients in the Netherlands die at home. General practitioners took fewer decisions about the end of life than hospital doctors and doctors in nursing homes (34%, 40%, and 56% of all dying patients, respectively). Specifically, decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment to prolong life were taken less often. Euthanasia or assisted suicide, however, was performed in 3.2% of all deaths in general practice compared with 1.4% in hospital practice. In over half of the cases concerning pain relief or non-treatment general practitioners did not discuss the decision with the patient, mostly because of incapacity of the patient, but in 20% of cases for "paternalistic" reasons. Older general practitioners discussed such decisions less often with their patients. Colleagues were consulted more often if the general practitioner worked in group practice. CONCLUSION--Differences in work situation between general practitioners and hospital doctors and differences between the group of general practitioners contribute to differences in the number and type of decisions about the end of life as well as in the decision making process.     

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study

ObjectivesTo identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice.DesignQualitative study.Setting20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England.Participants20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients.Results14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor''s decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients'' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors'' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients'' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing.ConclusionsPatients'' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.     

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, 1980-95: systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Review of 62 studies of the appropriateness of prescribing identified from seven electronic databases, from reference lists, and by hand searching of journals. A nominal group of 10 experts helped to define the appropriateness of prescribing. SETTING: General practice in the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalences of 19 indicators of inappropriate long term prescribing representing five dimensions: indication, choice of drug, drug administration, communication, and review. RESULTS: Prevalences of potentially inappropriate prescribing varied by indicator and chronic condition, but drug dosages outside the therapeutic range consistently recorded the highest rates. The lowest rates were generally associated with indicators of the choice of the drug, except cost minimisation. Communication is studied less frequently than other dimensions of prescribing appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base to support allegations of widespread inappropriate prescribing in general practice is unsound. Although inappropriate prescribing has occurred, the scale of the problem is unknown because of limitations associated with selection of a standard, publication bias, and uncertainty about the context of prescribing decisions. Opportunities for cost savings and effectiveness gains are thus unclear. Indicators applicable to individual patients could yield evidence of prescribing appropriateness.     

Lithium treatment: prescribing and monitoring habits in hospital and general practice.

OBJECTIVES--To define current clinical practice of lithium prescribing and monitoring and to compare hospital based practice with general practice. DESIGN--Prospective study of doctors'' practice. SETTING--Psychiatric hospital day and outpatient facilities and general practices in Edinburgh and Midlothian district (population 600,000). SUBJECTS--458 patients taking lithium who had been stabilised and who remained as outpatients during the year of study. 219 were treated by their general practitioner and 190 by the hospital; 49 had shared care or care transferred during the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Daily dose, duration of treatment, psychiatric diagnosis, mean annual serum lithium concentration, frequency of occurrence of and response to raised serum concentrations. RESULTS--Compared with hospital doctors general practitioners were more likely to prescribe lithium three or more times daily (43/219 (general practice) v 10/190 (hospital); chi 2 = 18.6, p = 0.001) and to estimate serum concentrations less frequently (4.5 v 5.3 measurements/year; t = 3.04, p = 0.003), and their patients were more likely to experience raised lithium concentrations (39/219 v 17/190; chi 2 = 6.8, p = 0.01). One third of doctors made no response to raised lithium concentrations in the next six weeks. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners and hospital doctors care for similar types of patients and the stringency of lithium surveillance varies greatly among doctors. Certain aspects of practice give cause for concern and could be improved by following more uniform guidelines.     

Dramaturgical study of meetings between general practitioners and representatives of pharmaceutical companies

ObjectivesTo examine the interaction between general practitioners and pharmaceutical company representatives.DesignQualitative study of 13 consecutive meetings between general practitioner and pharmaceutical representatives. A dramaturgical model was used to inform analysis of the transcribed verbal interactions.SettingPractice in south west England.Participants13 pharmaceutical company representatives and one general practitioner.ResultsThe encounters were acted out in six scenes. Scene 1 was initiated by the pharmaceutical representative, who acknowledged the relative status of the two players. Scene 2 provided the opportunity for the representative to check the general practitioner''s knowledge about the product. Scene 3 was used to propose clinical and cost benefits associated with the product. During scene 4, the general practitioner took centre stage and challenged aspects of this information. Scene 5 involved a recovery strategy as the representative fought to regain equilibrium. In the final scene, the representative tried to ensure future contacts.ConclusionEncounters between general practitioners and pharmaceutical representatives follow a consistent format that is implicitly understood by each player. It is naive to suppose that pharmaceutical representatives are passive resources for drug information. General practitioners might benefit from someone who can provide unbiased information about prescribing in a manner that is supportive and sympathetic to the demands of practice.

What is already known on this topic

Pharmaceutical representatives influence physicians'' prescribing in ways that are often unacknowledged by the physicians themselvesMeetings with pharmaceutical representatives are associated with increased prescribing costs and less rational prescribing

What this study adds

Meetings between pharmaceutical representatives and general practitioners follow a consistent format that is implicitly understood by each playerGeneral practitioners may cooperate because representatives make them feel valued     

General practitioners' referrals to specialist outpatient clinics. I. Why general practitioners refer patients to specialist outpatient clinics.

There has been much concern about the wide variations in general practitioners'' referral rates and the consequent implications for cost and quality of care. This has led to a call to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of referrals. A collaborative audit of referrals to outpatient clinics was conducted by 127 general practitioners in 33 practices in the Oxford region. Records were kept of 18,754 referrals, which included data on diagnoses and reasons for referral. Overall, 6553 (35.4%) of the referrals were for particular treatments or operations and a further 6475 (34.9%) were for specific investigation or diagnosis. Advice on management was the main reason for referral in 2656 (14.3%) cases, and in 1719 (9.3%) cases the general practitioners wanted the consultants to take over managing their patients. Reassurance of either the general practitioner or the patient was recorded as the main reason in only 762 (4.1%) referrals. There seems to be scope for rationalising the referral process. A programme with three stages for evaluating referrals to outpatient clinics is recommended.     

A study of general practitioners' reasons for changing their prescribing behaviour.

OBJECTIVES--To explore general practitioners'' reasons for recent changes in their prescribing behaviour. DESIGN--Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. SETTING--General practice in south east London. SUBJECTS--A heterogeneous sample of 18 general practitioners. RESULTS--Interviewees were able to identify between two and five specific changes that had occurred in their prescribing in the preceding six months. The most frequently mentioned changes related to fluoxetine, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and the antibiotic treatment of Helicobacter pylori. Three models of change were identified: an accumulation model, in which the volume and authority of evidence were important; a challenge model, in which behaviour change followed a dramatic or conflictual clinical event; and a continuity model, in which change took place against a background of willingness to change, modulated by other factors such as cost pressures and the comprehensible therapeutic action of a drug. Behaviour change was reinforced and sustained by experiences with individual patients. CONCLUSIONS--Multiple factors are involved in general practitioners'' decisions to change their prescribing habits. Three models of change can be identified which have important implications for the design and evaluation of interventions aimed at behaviour change.     

Responses by general practitioners in Avon to proposals for general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the views of Avon''s general practitioners about the general practice proposals within the government''s white paper Working for Patients. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--A county in south west England. SUBJECTS--All general practitioner principals (n = 537) under contract with Avon Family Practitioner Committee. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--492 doctors (92%) responded to the survey. More than three quarters of the respondents were opposed to the government''s proposals on budgets for specific surgical procedures, prescribing, and diagnostic tests; and between 63% and 93% felt negative about advantages that might accrue from the proposals. Over three quarters of general practitioners were in favour of family practitioner committees monitoring work load, prescribing, and referrals. General practitioners in large, potentially budget holding practices held similar views to doctors in smaller practices. CONCLUSIONS--Avon''s general practitioners substantially reject most of the government''s proposals about general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.     

Barriers to prescribing the Copper T 380A intrauterine device by physicians.

From a questionnaire sent to all obstetricians and gynecologists and all family and general practitioners in San Diego County, California, regarding the Copper T 380A intrauterine device, substantial barriers to prescribing it were identified. Of all physicians responding, 40% reported that they were not recommending the Copper T 380A to anyone, the single most common reason given being concern about medical liability. A lack of knowledge about the new device, a lack of intrauterine device insertion skills, and certain medical practice settings were also important barriers to prescribing it. The new intrauterine device is considered in the context of innovation-diffusion theory. Substantial amounts of education and training and improvement in the medical-legal climate are needed before current barriers to prescribing the new device are removed.     

Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of bacteria isolated from blood cultures of hospitalized patients in the United States in 2002

Background

Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are among the most frequent reasons for physician office visits in paediatrics. Despite their predominant viral aetiology, URTIs continue to be treated with antimicrobials. We explored general practitioners' (GPs) prescribing behaviour for antimicrobials in children (≤ 16 years) with URTIs in Trinidad, using the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a reference.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 92 consenting GPs from the 109 contacted in Central and East Trinidad, between January to June 2003. Using a pilot-tested questionnaire, GPs identified the 5 most frequent URTIs they see in office and reported on their antimicrobial prescribing practices for these URTIs to trained research students.

Results

The 5 most frequent URTIs presenting in children in general practice, are the common cold, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, sinusitis and acute otitis media (AOM) in rank order. GPs prescribe at least 25 different antibiotics for these URTIs with significant associations for amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, cefaclor, cefuroxime, erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin (p < 0.001). Amoxicillin alone or with clavulanate was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic for all URTIs. Prescribing variations from the CDC recommendations were observed for all URTIs except for AOM (50%), the most common condition for antibiotics. Doctors practicing for >30 years were more likely to prescribe antibiotics for the common cold (p = 0.014). Severity (95.7%) and duration of illness (82.5%) influenced doctors' prescribing and over prescribing in general practice was attributed to parent demands (75%) and concern for secondary bacterial infections (70%). Physicians do not request laboratory investigations primarily because they are unnecessary (86%) and the waiting time for results is too long (51%).

Conclusions

Antibiotics are over prescribed for paediatric URTIs in Trinidad and amoxicillin with co-amoxiclav were preferentially prescribed. Except for AOM, GPs' prescribing varied from the CDC guidelines for drug and duration. Physicians recognise antibiotics are overused and consider parents expecting antibiotics and a concern for secondary bacterial infections are prescribing pressures. Guidelines to manage URTIs, ongoing surveillance programs for antibiotic resistance, public health education on non-antibiotic strategies, and postgraduate education for rational pharmacotherapy in general practice would decrease inappropriate antibiotic use in URTIs.     

Avoidable referrals? Analysis of 170 consecutive referrals to secondary care.

OBJECTIVE--To determine appropriateness of referrals from primary care to secondary care. DESIGN--Retrospective evaluation of appropriateness of referrals from a single-handed general practice: evaluations carried out independently by referring doctor and by second general practitioner who worked in same area and had access to similar secondary care services. SUBJECTS--168 referrals made between 1 October 1990 and 31 March 1991 and followed up for up to 12 months by matching with available information on outcome of episode of care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Appropriateness of referral and reasons for inappropriate referrals. RESULTS--110 referrals were agreed to be appropriate and 58 were considered avoidable. The reason for 32 of the inappropriate referrals was lack of resources: 10 were due to lack of information (mainly failure of hospitals to pass on information to general practitioner), nine were due to a deficient primary health care team; five were due to insufficient use of home care nurses, three were due to absence of direct access to day hospital, and five were due to lack of access to general practitioner beds or other facilities. Most of the remaining 26 avoidable referrals were because available resources had not been fully used, because recognised management plans had not been followed, or because of lack of skills to perform certain procedures. CONCLUSIONS--Many theoretically avoidable referrals were due to managers'' and politicians'' decisions about allocation of resources, but some inappropriate referrals could be avoided by assessment of general practitioners'' needs for further knowledge and skills.     

Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners

ObjectiveTo explore consultants'' and general practitioners'' perceptions of the factors that influence their decisions to introduce new drugs into their clinical practice.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews. Monitoring of hospital and general practice prescribing data for eight new drugs.SettingTeaching hospital and nearby general hospital plus general practices in Birmingham.Participants38 consultants and 56 general practitioners who regularly referred to the teaching hospital.ResultsConsultants usually prescribed new drugs only in their specialty, used few new drugs, and used scientific evidence to inform their decisions. General practitioners generally prescribed more new drugs and for a wider range of conditions, but their approach varied considerably both between general practitioners and between drugs for the same general practitioner. Drug company representatives were an important source of information for general practitioners. Prescribing data were consistent with statements made by respondents.ConclusionsThe factors influencing the introduction of new drugs, particularly in primary care, are more multiple and complex than suggested by early theories of drug innovation. Early experience of using a new drug seems to strongly influence future use.

What is already known on this topic

UK studies show that use of new drugs by general practitioners is influenced by consultants, the nature of the drug, and perceived risk

What this study adds

Consultants generally introduced fewer drugs than general practitioners, usually within their specialtyDecisions were said to be based mainly on the evidence from the scientific literature and meetingsGeneral practitioners prescribed more new drugs and the basis of decisions was more variedDoctors'' interpretations of using a new drug were not consistent     

Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. II: Impact of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England on general practitioners and hospital consultants.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the impact on general practitioners and hospital consultants of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire and telephone interview survey of general practitioners and hospital consultants in January 1991. SETTING--94 selected major acute hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS--20 general practitioners in the vicinity of each of 94 selected hospitals and eight consultants from each, selected by chief pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportions of general practitioners unable to assume responsibility for specialist drugs and of consultants wishing to retain responsibility; association between dispensing restrictions and the frequency of general practitioners being asked to prescribe hospital initiated treatments. RESULTS--Completed questionnaires were obtained from 1207 (64%) of 1887 general practitioners and 457 (63%) of 729 consultants. 570 (46%) general practitioners felt unable to take responsibility for certain treatments, principally because of difficulty in detecting side effects (367, 30%), uncertainty about explaining treatment to patients (332, 28%), and difficulty monitoring dosage (294, 24%). Among consultants 328 (72%) wished to retain responsibility, principally because of specialist need for monitoring (93, 20%), urgent need to commence treatment (64, 14%), and specialist need to initiate or stabilise treatment (63, 14%). The more restricted the drug supply to outpatients, the more frequently consultants asked general practitioners to prescribe (p less than 0.01) and complete a short course of treatment initiated by the hospital (p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS--Restrictive hospital outpatient dispensing shifts clinical responsibility on to general practitioners. Hospital doctors should be able to retain responsibility for prescribing when the general practitioner is unfamiliar with the drug or there is a specialist need to initiate, stabilise, or monitor treatment.     

Psychological and social problems in HIV infection: interviews with general practitioners in London.

OBJECTIVE--To assess current practice and opinions of general practitioners in London about managing psychological and social problems relating to HIV infection. DESIGN--A stratified random sample of general practitioners, including those with a range of experience of people with HIV infection, were interviewed by medically trained interviewers. SETTING--Doctor''s surgeries. PARTICIPANTS--270 General practitioners working within the area covered by London postcodes. RESULTS--Two thirds of doctors had treated at least one patient with HIV infection and described their work with these patients. General practitioners were counselling and educating many of their patients about AIDS and associated risk behaviours and were aware of the need for careful attention to confidentiality. Doctors with no experience of patients with HIV infection were often older, in singlehanded practice, less inclined to deal with drug abusers or to counsel their patients on risk behaviours, and more in favour of insurance companies'' policies towards people with HIV infection. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners in London are quickly becoming involved in the care of patients with HIV infection and their relatives and friends. Many are counselling patients and testing for antibodies themselves and regard this as an integral part of their work. A considerable workload in primary care comprised patients who obsessively fear contracting HIV infection.