Reducing prescribing of benzodiazepines in older adults: a comparison of four physician-focused interventions by a medical regulatory authority.

BACKGROUND: The inappropriate and/or high prescribing of benzodiazepine and 'Z' drugs (BDZ +) is a major health concern. The purpose of this study was to determine whether physician or pharmacist led interventions or a simple letter or a personalized prescribing report from a medical regulatory authority (MRA) was the most effective intervention for reducing BDZ + prescribing by physicians to patients 65 years of age or older. METHODS: This was a four-armed, one year, blinded, randomized, parallel-group, investigational trial in Alberta, Canada. Participants were fully licensed physicians (n = 272) who had prescribed 4 times the defined daily dose (4 + DDD) or more of any BDZ + to an older patient at least once in the 3rd quarter of 2016. All physician-participants were sent a personalized prescribing profile by the MRA. They were then randomized into four groups that received either nothing more, an additional personal warning letter from the MRA, a personal phone call from an MRA pharmacist or a personal phone call from an MRA physician. The main outcomes were prescribing behavior change of physicians at one year in terms of: change in mean number of older patients receiving 4 + DDD BDZ + and mean dose BDZ + prescribed per physician. To adjust for multiple statistical testing, we used MANCOVA to test both main outcome measures simultaneously by group whilst controlling for any baseline differences. RESULTS: All groups experienced a significant fall in the total number of older patients receiving 4 + DDD of BDZ + by about 50% (range 43-54%) per physician at one year, and a fall in the mean dose of BDZ + prescribed of about 13% (range 10-16%). However, there was no significant difference between each group. CONCLUSIONS: A personalized prescribing report alone sent from the MRA appears to be an effective intervention for reducing very high levels of BDZ + prescribing in older patients. Additional interventions by a pharmacist or physician did not result in additional benefit. The intervention needs to be tested further on a more general population of physicians, prescribing less extreme doses of BDZ + and that looks at more clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes.

Survey of physician attitudes to using multisource feedback for competence assessment in Alberta.

BACKGROUND: The use of multisource feedback (MSF) for assessing physician performance is widespread and rapidly growing. Findings from early very small research studies using highly selected participants suggest high levels of satisfaction and support. However, after nearly two decades of experience using MSF to evaluate all physicians in Alberta, we are sceptical of this. OBJECTIVES: To determine physicians' actual opinions of MSF using the entire physician population of Alberta, Canada DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians with a full licence to practice in Alberta in 2015. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were asked to grade how well they thought MSF was at assessing various aspects of physician performance using a 10-point Likert-type scale. There was also a text response field for written comments. OUTCOMES: Mean responses to quantitative questions. Qualitative content and thematic analysis of open-ended text responses.We analysed the data using SPSS V.23 and NVivo V.11 and built a multivariate model highlighting the predictors of high and low opinions of MSF. RESULTS: Survey response rate was high for physicians with 2215 responses (25%). The mean rating for how successful MSF was at assessing a variety of dimensions, varied from a low of 5.03/10 for medical knowledge to a high of 6.38/10 for professionalism and communication. Canadian-trained MDs rated MSF significantly lower on every dimension by approximately 20% compared with non-Canadian-trained MDs. CONCLUSIONS: Alberta physicians have much lower opinions about the ability of MSF to measure any dimension of their performance than what has been suggested in the literature. Canadian-trained MDs have a particularly low opinion of MSF for reasons that remain unclear. The results of this survey offer a serious challenge to the effectiveness of a programme that is designed to promote self-reflection and performance improvement.