Audit and feedback interventions involving pharmacists to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Carter, Mary and Abutheraa, Nouf and Ivers, Noah and Grimshaw, Jeremy and Chapman, Sarah and Rogers, Philip and Simeoni, Michelle and Anthony, Jesmin and Watson, Margaret C (2023) Audit and feedback interventions involving pharmacists to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice : a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Family Practice, 40 (5-6). pp. 615-628. ISSN 1471-2296 (https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac150)

[thumbnail of Carter-etal-BMCFP-2023-Audit-and-feedback-interventions-involving-pharmacists-to-influence-prescribing-behaviour]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Carter_etal_BMCFP_2023_Audit_and_feedback_interventions_involving_pharmacists_to_influence_prescribing_behaviour.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (759kB)| Preview

Abstract

Introduction Pharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome. Results Eleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64–0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions. Conclusions A&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness. PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)