Bayesian Cohort and Cross-Sectional Analyses of the PINCER Trial: A Pharmacist-Led Intervention to Reduce Medication Errors in Primary Care

被引:9
作者
Hemming, Karla [1 ]
Chilton, Peter J. [1 ]
Lilford, Richard J. [1 ]
Avery, Anthony [2 ]
Sheikh, Aziz [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Sch Publ Hlth Epidemiol & Biostat, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[2] Univ Nottingham, Div Primary Care, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England
[3] Univ Edinburgh, Ctr Populat Hlth Sci, eHealth Res Grp, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
来源
PLOS ONE | 2012年 / 7卷 / 06期
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; DRUG-RELATED MORBIDITY; MEDICINES MANAGEMENT; PRIOR DISTRIBUTIONS; PUBLIC-POLICY; BASE-LINE; STATISTICS; METAANALYSIS; INFORMATION; INDICATORS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0038306
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Medication errors are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. The PINCER study, a cluster randomised controlled trial, is one of the world's first experimental studies aiming to reduce the risk of such medication related potential for harm in general practice. Bayesian analyses can improve the clinical interpretability of trial findings. Methods: Experts were asked to complete a questionnaire to elicit opinions of the likely effectiveness of the intervention for the key outcomes of interest - three important primary care medication errors. These were averaged to generate collective prior distributions, which were then combined with trial data to generate Bayesian posterior distributions. The trial data were analysed in two ways: firstly replicating the trial reported cohort analysis acknowledging pairing of observations, but excluding non-paired observations; and secondly as cross-sectional data, with no exclusions, but without acknowledgement of the pairing. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses were compared. Findings: Bayesian evaluations suggest that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of one of the medication errors by about 50 (estimated to be between 20% and 70%). However, for the other two main outcomes considered, the evidence that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of prescription errors is less conclusive. Conclusions: Clinicians are interested in what trial results mean to them, as opposed to what trial results suggest for future experiments. This analysis suggests that the PINCER intervention is strongly effective in reducing the likelihood of one of the important errors; not necessarily effective in reducing the other errors. Depending on the clinical importance of the respective errors, careful consideration should be given before implementation, and refinement targeted at the other errors may be something to consider.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Bayesian Statistics in Oncology A Guide for the Clinical Investigator
    Adamina, Michel
    Tomlinson, George
    Guller, Ulrich
    [J]. CANCER, 2009, 115 (23) : 5371 - 5381
  • [2] Avery A, 2010, PINCER TRIAL CLUSTER
  • [3] Avery AJ, 2002, BRIT J GEN PRACT, V52, pS17
  • [4] A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
    Avery, Anthony J.
    Rodgers, Sarah
    Cantrill, Judith A.
    Armstrong, Sarah
    Cresswell, Kathrin
    Eden, Martin
    Elliott, Rachel A.
    Howard, Rachel
    Kendrick, Denise
    Morris, Caroline J.
    Prescott, Robin J.
    Swanwick, Glen
    Franklin, Matthew
    Putman, Koen
    Boyd, Matthew
    Sheikh, Aziz
    [J]. LANCET, 2012, 379 (9823) : 1310 - 1319
  • [5] Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices
    Avery, Anthony J.
    Rodgers, Sarah
    Cantrill, Judith A.
    Armstrong, Sarah
    Elliott, Rachel
    Howard, Rachel
    Kendrick, Denise
    Morris, Caroline J.
    Murray, Scott A.
    Prescott, Robin J.
    Cresswell, Kathrin
    Sheikh, Aziz
    [J]. TRIALS, 2009, 10
  • [6] Mycophenolate mofetil for steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome: a phase II Bayesian trial
    Baudouin, Veronique
    Alberti, Corinne
    Lapeyraque, Anne-Laure
    Bensman, Albert
    Andre, Jean-Luc
    Broux, Francoise
    Cailliez, Mathilde
    Decramer, Stephane
    Niaudet, Patrick
    Deschenes, Georges
    Jacqz-Aigrain, Evelyne
    Loirat, Chantal
    [J]. PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY, 2012, 27 (03) : 389 - 396
  • [7] Bayesian statistics may inform public policy better than significant odds ratios
    Braunholtz, D
    Lilford, R
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7088) : 1202 - 1202
  • [8] Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models(Comment on an Article by Browne and Draper)
    Gelman, Andrew
    [J]. BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, 2006, 1 (03): : 515 - 533
  • [9] A Bayesian approach to randomized controlled trials in children utilizing information from adults: the case of Guillain-Barre syndrome
    Goodman, SN
    Sladky, JT
    [J]. CLINICAL TRIALS, 2005, 2 (04) : 305 - 310
  • [10] Applying preventable drug-related morbidity indicators to the electronic patient record in UK primary care: methodological development
    Hammersley, VS
    Morris, CJ
    Rodgers, S
    Cantrill, JA
    Avery, AJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2006, 31 (03) : 223 - 229