Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work

Sumit R. Majumdar and Stephen B. Soumerai
CMAJ July 08, 2003 169 (1) 30-31;
Sumit R. Majumdar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen B. Soumerai
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

It is well established that the quality of physician prescribing is suboptimal.1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Elderly patients are at risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing because of their need for polypharmacy, increased susceptibility to adverse reactions, greater comorbidity and exposure to multiple prescribers as a result of fragmentation of care.1 , 2 Elderly people are also at much greater risk of underusing many essential drugs.1 , 2 , 5 How to best reconcile the tension between polypharmacy and adverse effects, on the one hand, and the much larger problem of underuse of drugs and unrealized health benefits, on the other, is not known. Interventions to improve the quality of prescribing are urgently needed.

Several systematic reviews of such interventions have been reported.5 , 6 Although the literature is plagued by the absence of a common nomenclature, inadequate study designs, too-short time horizons and a focus on process rather than outcome, 3 generalizations can be made:

1. Interventions that rely solely on passive information transfer are ineffective. This includes disseminating articles and delivering traditional lectures in continuing medical education, as well as providing unsolicited information such as clinical guidelines, medication profiles or drug use reviews.

2. Active knowledge translation strategies are usually effective, although the effects are modest. Active strategies include audit and feedback involving comparison with peers and “real-time” reminders. Educational outreach (academic detailing) is the most consistently effective intervention reported. Based on social marketing theory, it refers to repeated face-to-face delivery of simple, targeted, and trialable educational messages to physicians by a credible messenger such as a pharmacist.

3. Interventions that incorporate 2 or more distinct strategies (i.e., that are multifaceted) are more likely to work than single interventions.

With these precepts in mind and the conviction that community pharmacists are an underused resource, John Sellors and colleagues describe in this issue (page 17)7 how they developed a multifaceted intervention to improve prescribing for elderly patients taking more than 4 drugs. The intervention consisted of a detailed medication review by a specially trained pharmacist. Intervention pharmacists had access to patients' medical charts and interviewed study patients in physicians' offices. This aspect was essential because one-third of apparent drug-related problems can be resolved with access to clinical data.4 A letter with explicit drug therapy recommendations was generated and sent to physicians. Soon after, pharmacists met in person with the physicians, and met them again after 3 months for a reminder visit. This intervention was compared with “usual care” in a cluster randomized controlled trial of 48 primary care physicians and 889 of their elderly patients. The primary aim was to reduce the number of drugs taken per patient. The investigators justify this by arguing that any reduction in the number of drugs taken by elderly people is an unqualified good, acting as “a proxy for a simplified medication regimen [leading to] fewer interactions, improved compliance and hence improved patient outcomes.”7 The design, conduct and analysis of this study have overcome most of the methodologic problems endemic to this type of research.5 , 6 , 8

What did the investigators find? Compared with usual care, the pharmacist-based intervention had no effect on the number of drugs taken by patients (mean of 12.4 units v. 12.2 units per day in the control group, p = 0.50). There were also no differences in medication costs, health care use or health-related quality of life. These results are robustly negative, internally valid and, perhaps, not that unexpected. Although some will question the intervention dose (1 consultation) or study duration (5 months), we believe there are 2 other reasons for the lack of effect of an intervention that should have worked.

First, the intervention may have worked, but the wrong outcomes were measured. Although the intervention was intended to reduce the number of drugs, 28% of the drug-related problems identified by study pharmacists were errors of omission and 51% related to therapeutic substitution and better dosing. The vast majority of recommendations necessitated maintaining or increasing the number of drugs. This illustrates that the goal of simply reducing the number of drugs taken by elderly patients is misdirected, and we believe it should be abandoned as a measure of quality. The investigators also cautiously present some nonblinded, noncontrolled “process” data regarding recognition and resolution of drug-related problems in the intervention group. Because they did not collect the same data for control patients, as done in other studies,3 , 4 , 8 we cannot know if the intervention actually succeeded in improving prescribing over and above usual care.

Second, it could be that the intervention worked but was not all that much better than usual “pharmaceutical care.” Pharmaceutical care is described as a multifaceted process that ensures the appropriate use of specific drug therapies and results in positive outcomes for patients.9 Community pharmacists, whether or not they were part of the intervention, had pre-existing therapeutic alliances with patients and physicians. It is to be expected, and hoped, that pharmacists who were not part of the study were continuously addressing some drug-related problems in their elderly patients, leading to some improvements over time. It has long been acknowledged that the quality of care improves over time, and the influence of such secular trends should not be underestimated.3 , 4 , 5 , 10 For example, a trial of a somewhat similar intervention recently reported an 18% improvement in prescribing over 1 year — in the control group.3

In summary, the literature on changing physician practice is littered with many good ideas that were prematurely adopted and later found to be ineffective when tested in controlled studies.5 , 6 For instance, electronic health records with embedded computerized decision support to improve guideline adherence are widely advocated; however, a recent trial found that this intervention could not improve management of asthma or coronary disease in primary care.11 John Sellors and colleagues are to be commended for having a good idea and rigorously testing it. Interventions to improve the quality of care need to be evidence-based and should not be widely adopted until controlled studies demonstrate that they are both safe and more effective than usual care. When usual care involves managing elderly patients' medication regimens with the intent of trying to balance risks and benefits as well as underuse and overuse, a one-off intervention should not be expected to work. Yet, in the search for solutions to prescribing problems, community pharmacists have been a too-often ignored resource. Further trials of integrated, coordinated and ongoing community-based pharmaceutical care interventions are certainly warranted and should be a research priority. Only with the results of these future studies in hand will we know whether consultation with community pharmacists can be added to the short list of methods capable of improving physicians' prescribing practices.

𝛃 See related article page 17

Footnotes

  • Contributors: Both authors contributed substantially to the conception and design of the commentary. Dr. Majumdar wrote the initial draft. Both authors revised subsequent drafts for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the version to be published.

    Acknowledgements: Dr. Majumdar is a Population Health Investigator, supported by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, and a New Investigator supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Soumerai is an Investigator in the HMO Research Network Center for Education and Research in Therapeutics, supported by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no U18H510391) and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Gurwitz JH, Rochon P. Improving the quality of medication use in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1670-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Lipton HL, Byrns PJ, Soumerai SB, Chrischilles EA. Pharmacists as agents of change for rational drug therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:485-508.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Allard J, Hebert R, Rioux M, Asselin J, Voyer L. Efficacy of a clinical medication review on the number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions for community dwelling elderly people. CMAJ 2001;164(9):1291-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Krska J, Cromarty JA, Arris F, Jamieson D, Hansford D, Duffus PR, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. Age Ageing 2001;30:205-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Soumerai SB, Majumdar SR, Lipton HL. Evaluating and improving physician prescribing. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons; 2000. p. 483-503.
  6. 6.↵
    Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):2-45.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Sellors J, Kaczorowski J, Sellors C, Dolovich L, Woodward C, Willan A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a pharmacist consultation program for family physicians and their elderly patients. CMAJ 2003;169(1):17-22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Singhal PK, Raisch DW, Gupchup GV. The impact of pharmaceutical services in community and ambulatory care settings: evidence and recommendations for future research. Ann Pharmacother 1999;33:1336-55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:533-43.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  10. 10.↵
    Zhan C, Sangl J, Bierman AS, Miller MR, Friedman B, Wickizer SW, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in the community-dwelling elderly: findings from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. JAMA 2001; 286:2823-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Eccles M, McColl E, Steen N, Rousseau N, Grimshaw J, Parkin D, et al. Effect of computerized evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2002;325:941-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 1
8 Jul 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work
Sumit R. Majumdar, Stephen B. Soumerai
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (1) 30-31;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work
Sumit R. Majumdar, Stephen B. Soumerai
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (1) 30-31;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • A randomized controlled trial of a pharmacist consultation program for family physicians and their elderly patients
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • An evaluation of prescribing trends and patterns of claims within the Preferred Drugs Initiative in Ireland (2011-2016): an interrupted time-series study
  • Initial Single-Pill Blood Pressure-Lowering Therapy: Should It Be for Most People?
  • Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older Patients in Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial (OPTI-SCRIPT Study)
  • Treatment review by case conferences led to more medication changes than written feedback in older people on polypharmacy
  • A sample of Canadian orthopedic surgeons expressed willingness to participate in osteoporosis management for fragility fracture patients
  • Canadian Quality Circle pilot project in osteoporosis: Rationale, methods, and feasibility
  • Costs and Cost Effectiveness of a Health Care Provider-Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Addiction medicine
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire