Safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing: OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20.5 million adults' electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic many patients were switched from warfarin to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which require the creatinine clearance (CrCl) calculated to ensure the correct dose is prescribed to avoid bleeding or reduced efficacy. AIM: To identify the study population proportion prescribed a DOAC. Of these, the proportion with recorded: weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine, CrCl and atrial fibrillation (AF). To analyse the proportion of patients with recorded AF and CrCl prescribed a recommended DOAC dose. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of 20.5 million adult NHS patients' electronic health records (EHRs) in England in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (January 2018-February 2023). METHOD: Patients on DOACs were analysed for age, sex, recorded weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl and AF. Prescribed DOAC doses in patients with recorded AF were compared with recommended doses for recorded CrCl and determined as either recommended, higher than recommended (overdose), or lower than recommended (underdose). RESULTS: In February 2023, weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl, and AF were recorded in 72.8%, 92.4%, 94.3%, 73.5%, and 73.9% of study population, respectively. Both AF and CrCl were recorded for 56.7% of patients. Of these, 86.2% received the recommended, and 13.8% non-recommended, DOAC doses. CONCLUSION: CrCl is not recorded for a substantial number of patients on DOACs. We recommend that national organisations tasked with safety, collectively update guidance on the appropriate weight to use in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, clarify that CrCl is not equivalent to eGFR, and work with GP clinical system suppliers to standardise the calculation of CrCl in the EHR.

National quality improvement intervention to reduce high risk oral methotrexate prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Harmful or fatal errors related to accidental overdose of methotrexate tablets are well documented. In England, the coprescription of 2.5 mg and 10 mg methotrexate tablets is not recommended, because both tablets look similar, and may be confused with each other, leading to a potential overdose of methotrexate. It is recommended that one tablet strength (usually 2.5 mg) is prescribed and dispensed. A recent retrospective cohort study identified that while 97% of patients in England were prescribed only 2.5 mg methotrexate tablets, the prescribing of 10 mg tablets or combinations of 2.5 mg and 10 mg tablets was still common practice in a small number of geographical areas across the country. AIM AND METHODOLOGY: To reduce national variation in the prescription of oral methotrexate 10 mg tablets, for non-cancer treatment, by November 2021. A focused, five-stage quality improvement (QI) intervention was used, providing centralised support to a cohort of high prescribing integrated care systems (ICSs) in England. FINDINGS: 23% (10) of ICSs in England were responsible for 76% of prescribing of methotrexate 10 mg tablets. Eight of these high prescribing ICSs participated in the QI intervention between March and November 2021. During the action period, the high prescribing cohort saw a 54% reduction in the prescribing of methotrexate 10 mg tablets, with seven ICSs seeing reductions of between 41% and 75%, resulting in reduced variation between the high prescribing ICSs and all other ICSs. The intervention was well received by ICSs with all making structural changes to their respective systems so that improvement would be sustained. CONCLUSIONS: The success of this project raises several exciting opportunities for further work of this nature, particularly where this is significant variation in practice across the country.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. METHODS: We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. RESULTS: Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.