Shirley Halliwell

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

Abstract 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.

User involvement in clinical governance

Objectives To investigate the involvement of users in clinical governance activities within Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs). Drawing on policy and guidance published since 1997, the paper sets out a framework for how users are involved in this agenda, evaluates practice against this standard and suggests why current practice for user involvement in clinical governance is flawed and why this reflects a flaw in the policy design as much as its implementation.

Some National Service Frameworks are more equal than others: Implementing clinical governance for mental health in primary care groups and trusts

This paper reports the findings of a study concerned with the way in which Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) engaged with the Mental Health National Service Framework (NSF) as part of their remit to implement clinical governance. A qualitative multiple case study is reported which used semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis in a purposive sample of 12 PCG-Ts in England. The study found a general awareness of and support for the Mental Health NSF among PCG-Ts. In some localities the NSF acted to reinforce existing local developments in primary care mental health. However, compared to the NSF for Coronary Heart Disease a number of difficulties in responding to the Mental Health NSF were identified. These related to the perceived clinical status and complexity of managing mental health problems at practice level (e.g. familiarity with and competence of General Practitioners (GPs) in managing the conditions), inter-agency working, clinical governance training and the feasibility of producing clear demonstrable mental health outcomes as part of performance management. While the NSF for mental health presents opportunities for establishing the principles of quality assurance and improvement in the area of mental health, it is in danger of being marginalized in the clinical governance agendas of new PCTs, because of an inability to compete on an equal footing with other clinical priorities. While the partial demedicalisation of mental health is increasingly recognised as desirable for policy and therapeutic reasons the corollary is that it is harder to implement non-medicalised forms of care through the essentially medicalised apparatus of clinical governance. In order to deal with the complexities and challenges posed by the mental health agenda targeted support and resources are needed to promote clinical governance developments within primary care organisations.