The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0705-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Many people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals’ perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing.
Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals’ views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work.
Four hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice.
The findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.
Additional file 1: FLIPMEDS: the survey tool. Details the survey tool used in the study. (DOCX 20 kb)12875_2017_705_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Duerden M, Avery T, Payne R. Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation. Making it safe, making it sound. Kings Fund. 2013. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/polypharmacy-and-medicines-optimisation. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
Denford, Frost, Dieppe, Cooper, Britten. Individualisation of drug treatments for patients with long-term conditions: a review of concepts. BMJ Open 2014;4: e004172.
Reeve J, Cooper L. Rethinking how we understand individual health care needs for people living with long term conditions: a qualitative study. Health and Soc Care Community. 2016;24:27–38. CrossRef
Demain S, Gonçalves A-C, Areia C, Oliveira R, Marcos J, Marques A, Parmar R, Hunt K. Living with, managing and minimising treatment burden in long term conditions: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS One. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125457.
Milton JC, Jackson SH. 2007. Inappropriate polypharmacy, reducing the burden of multiple medication. Clin Med. 2007;7:514–7. CrossRef
Mohammed MA, Mdes RJ, Chen TF. Medication-related burden and pateints’ lived experience with medicines: a systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010035.
Pound, Britten, Morgan, Yardley, Pope et al Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:133–155.
Lindsay S. Prioritizing illness: lessons in self-managing multiple chronic diseases. Can J Sociol. 2009;34:983–1002.
Reeve J, Dowrick C, Freeman G, Gunn J, Mair F, May C, Mercer S, Palmer V, Howe A, Irving G, Shiner A, Watson J. Examining the practice of generalist expertise: a qualitative study identifying constraints and solutions. JRSM Short Rep. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1177/2042533313510155.
Fleming J, Patel P, Tristram S, Reeve J. The fall and rise of generalism: perceptions of generalist practice amongst medical students (Letter). Education for Primary Care. 2017;28(4)
Normalisation Process Theory. http://www.normalizationprocess.org/. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
NoMAD Study. http://www.normalizationprocess.org/nomad-study/. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
Gabbay J, le May A. Practice based evidence for healthcare: clinical mindlines. New York: Routledge; 2011.
Sinnott C, Mercer SW, Payne RA, Duerden M, Bradley CP, Byrne M. Improving medication management in multimorbidity: development of the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And Decision making (MY COMRADE)intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Implement Sci. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0322-1.
Royal College of General Practitioners. Medical generalism: why expertise in whole person medicine matters. (2011) http://www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/rcgp-policy-areas/medical-generalism.aspx. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
Medical Research Council. Developing and implementing complex interventions (2008) https://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
Heaton J, Britten N, Krska J, Reeve J. Person-centred medicines optimisation policy in England: an agenda for research on polypharmacy. Prim Health Care Res Development. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423616000207.
Reeve J. Supporting expert generalist practice: the SAGE consultation model. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;35:207–8. CrossRef
- Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Allgemeinmedizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II