Family physicians' perceptions of academic detailing: a quantitative and qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy of academic detailing in changing physicians' knowledge and practice has been the subject of many primary research publications and systematic reviews. However, there is little written about the features of academic detailing that physicians find valuable or that affect their use of it. The goal of our project was to explore family physicians' (FPs) perceptions of academic detailing and the factors that affect their use of it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used 2 methods to collect data, a questionnaire and semi-structured telephone interviews. We mailed questionnaires to all FPs in the Dalhousie Office of Continuing Medical Education database and analyzed responses of non-users and users of academic detailing. After a preliminary analysis of questionnaire data, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 7 FPs who did not use academic detailing and 17 who did use it.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall response rate to the questionnaire was 33% (289/869). Response rate of non-users of academic detailing was 15% (60/393), of users was 48% (229/476). The 3 factors that most encouraged use of academic detailing were the topics selected, the evidence-based approach adopted, and the handout material. The 3 factors that most discouraged the use of academic detailing were spending office time doing CME, scheduling time to see the academic detailer, and having CME provided by a non-physician. Users of academic detailing rated it as being more valuable than other forms of CME. Generally, interview data confirmed questionnaire data with the exception that interview informants did not view having CME provided by a non-physician as a barrier. Interview informants mentioned that the evidence-based approach adopted by academic detailing had led them to more critically evaluate information from other CME programs, pharmaceutical representatives, and journal articles, but not advice from specialists.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Users of academic detailing highly value its educational value and tend to view information from other sources more critically because of its evidence-based approach. Non-users are unlikely to adopt academic detailing despite its high educational value because they find using office time for CME too much of a barrier. To reach these physicians with academic detailing messages, we will have to find other CME formats.</p

The process of identifying, solving and preventing drug related problems in the LIMM-study

Objective To avoid negative effects of drug treatment and need for additional medical care, drug treatment must be individualised. Our research group has developed a model for clinical pharmacy which improves several aspects of the patient's drug treatment. This study describes the process behind these improvements, i.e. drug related problems identified by pharmacists within a clinical pharmacy service. Setting Three wards at a department of internal medicine. Method Pharmacists performed systematic interventions during the patient's hospital stay, aiming to identify, solve and prevent drug related problems in the elderly. Identified drug related problems were put forward to the health care team and discussed. Information on identified problems, and their outcomes was collected and analysed. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the health care personnel's attitudes towards the process. Main outcome measure The number of drug related problems identified by the clinical pharmacists, the proportion of problems discussed with the physicians, the proportion of problems adjusted by the physicians and whether pharmacists and physicians prioritised any subgroup of drug related problems when choosing which problems to address. Finally, we wanted to evaluate the health care personnel's attitudes towards the model. Results In total, 1,227 problem were identified in 190 patients. The pharmacists discussed 685 (55.8%) of the identified problems with the physicians who accepted 438 (63.9%) of the suggestions. There was no significant difference in which subgroup to put forward and which to adjust. There was a high response rate (84%) to the questionnaire, and the health care personnel estimated the benefits to be very high, both for the patients and for themselves. Conclusion The process for identifying, solving and preventing drug related problems was good and the different types of problems were considered equally important. The addition of a clinical pharmacy service was considered very useful. This suggests that the addition of our clinical pharmacy service to the hospital setting add skills of great importance

Is use of fall risk-increasing drugs in an elderly population associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, after adjustment for multimorbidity level: a cohort study

Background: Risk factors for hip fracture are well studied because of the negative impact on patients and the community, with mortality in the first year being almost 30% in the elderly. Age, gender and fall risk-increasing drugs, identified by the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden, are well known risk factors for hip fracture, but how multimorbidity level affects the risk of hip fracture during use of fall risk-increasing drugs is to our knowledge not as well studied. This study explored the relationship between use of fall risk-increasing drugs in combination with multimorbidity level and risk of hip fracture in an elderly population. Methods: Data were from Ostergotland County, Sweden, and comprised the total population in the county aged 75 years and older during 2006. The odds ratio (OR) for hip fracture during use of fall risk-increasing drugs was calculated by multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, gender and individual multimorbidity level. Multimorbidity level was estimated with the Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System and grouped into six Resource Utilization Bands (RUBs 0-5). Results: 2.07% of the study population (N = 38,407) had a hip fracture during 2007. Patients using opioids (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34-1.82), dopaminergic agents (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.24-2.55), anxiolytics (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54), antidepressants (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.95) or hypnotics/sedatives (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.52) had increased ORs for hip fracture after adjustment for age, gender and multimorbidity level. Vasodilators used in cardiac diseases, antihypertensive agents, diuretics, beta-blocking agents, calcium channel blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were not associated with an increased OR for hip fracture after adjustment for age, gender and multimorbidity level. Conclusions: Use of fall risk-increasing drugs such as opioids, dopaminergic agents, anxiolytics, antidepressants and hypnotics/sedatives increases the risk of hip fracture after adjustment for age, gender and multimorbidity level. Fall risk-increasing drugs, high age, female gender and multimorbidity level, can be used to identify high-risk patients who could benefit from a medication review to reduce the risk of hip fracture