Article Text

Evaluating the safety of mental health-related prescribing in UK primary care: a cross-sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)
  1. Wael Y Khawagi1,2,
  2. Douglas Steinke1,3,
  3. Matthew J Carr1,4,
  4. Alison K Wright1,3,
  5. Darren M Ashcroft1,4,
  6. Anthony Avery4,5,
  7. Richard Neil Keers1,6
  1. 1 Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia
  3. 3 Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
  4. 4 NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  5. 5 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  6. 6 Pharmacy Department, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Wael Y Khawagi, Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, University of Manchester Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester M13 9PT, UK; w.khawagi{at}tu.edu.sa

Abstract

Background Most patients with mental illness are managed in primary care, yet there is a lack of data exploring potential prescribing safety issues in this setting for this population.

Objectives Examine the prevalence of, between-practice variation in, and patient and practice-level risk factors for, 18 mental health-related potentially hazardous prescribing indicators and four inadequate medication monitoring indicators in UK primary care.

Method Cross-sectional analyses of routinely collected electronic health records from 361 practices contributing to Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. The proportion of patients ‘at risk’ (based on an existing diagnosis, medication, age and/or sex) triggering each indicator and composite indicator was calculated. To examine between-practice variation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and median OR (MOR) were estimated using two-level logistic regression models. The relationship between patient and practice characteristics and risk of triggering composites including 16 of the 18 prescribing indicators and four monitoring indicators were assessed using multilevel logistic regression.

Results 9.4% of patients ‘at risk’ (151 469 of 1 611 129) triggered at least one potentially hazardous prescribing indicator; between practices this ranged from 3.2% to 24.1% (ICC 0.03, MOR 1.22). For inadequate monitoring, 90.2% of patients ‘at risk’ (38 671 of 42 879) triggered at least one indicator; between practices this ranged from 33.3% to 100% (ICC 0.26, MOR 2.86). Patients aged 35–44, females and those receiving more than 10 repeat prescriptions were at greatest risk of triggering a prescribing indicator. Patients aged less than 25, females and those with one or no repeat prescription were at greatest risk of triggering a monitoring indicator.

Conclusion Potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate medication monitoring commonly affect patients with mental illness in primary care, with marked between-practice variation for some indicators. These findings support health providers to identify improvement targets and inform development of improvement efforts to reduce medication-related harm.

  • mental health
  • medication safety
  • medical error
  • measurement/epidemiology
  • primary care
  • quality measurement

Data availability statement

Electronic health records are, by definition, considered “sensitive” data in the UK by the Data Protection Act and cannot be shared via public deposition because of information governance restriction in place to protect patient confidentiality. Access to data is available only once approval has been obtained through the individual constituent entities controlling access to the data. The primary care data can be requested via application to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (https://www.cprd.com).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Electronic health records are, by definition, considered “sensitive” data in the UK by the Data Protection Act and cannot be shared via public deposition because of information governance restriction in place to protect patient confidentiality. Access to data is available only once approval has been obtained through the individual constituent entities controlling access to the data. The primary care data can be requested via application to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (https://www.cprd.com).

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @Khawagi, @_AlisonWright

  • Contributors The original idea for the research was developed by WYK, RNK and DS, with input from DMA and AA. WYK conducted the analysis with input from RNK, MJC, AKW, DMA and DS. WYK, MJC and AKW had full access to the data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings. WYK drafted the paper and all authors reviewed and edited the manuscript, and approved the version to be published. WYK is the guarantor of the study.

  • Funding Access to the CPRD was funded by the University of Manchester. DMA, MC and AJA are funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC-2016-003).

  • Disclaimer The funder had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not reflect the views of the funder.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles