Search

Purpose: Physicians' use of self-assessment to guide quality improvement or board certification activities often does not correlate with more objective measures, and they may spend valuable time on activities that support their strengths instead of addressing gaps. Our objective was to study whether viewing quality measures, with peer comparisons, would affect the selection of certification activities.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial-the Trial of Data Exchange for Maintenance of certification and Raising Quality (TRADEMaRQ)-with 4 partner organizations during 2015-2017. Physicians were presented their quality data within their online certification portfolios before (intervention) vs after (control) they chose board certification activities. The primary outcome was whether the selected activity addressed a quality gap (a quality area in which the physician scored below the mean for the study population).Results: Of 2,570 invited physicians, 254 physicians completed the study: 130 in the intervention group and 124 in the control group. Nearly one-fifth of participating physicians did not complete any certification activities during the study. A sizable minority of those in the intervention group, 18.4%, never reviewed their quality dashboard. Overall, just 27.2% of completed certification activities addressed a quality gap, and there was no significant difference in this outcome in the intervention group vs the control group in either bivariate or adjusted analyses (odds ratio = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.82).Conclusions: Physicians did not use quality performance data in choosing certification activities. Certification boards are being pressed to make their programs relevant to practice, less burdensome, and supportive of quality improvement in alignment with value-based payment models. Using practice data to drive certification choices would meet these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nifedipine is commonly prescribed for the treatment of chilblains (pernio, perniosis) on the basis of observational studies and a single small, older clinical trial. We aimed to confirm the proposed superiority of oral nifedipine 60 mg per day over placebo for treatment of chronic chilblains in primary care.Methods: We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial, closely following the design of the older trial. A total of 32 patients with chronic chilblains were randomly assigned to nifedipine (30 mg controlled release twice a day) or placebo. The primary outcome was patient-reported complaints; the secondary outcome was patient-reported disability. Both were assessed from daily ratings on 100-mm visual analogue scales recorded in a diary. We took ambient temperatures into account and checked for a carry-over effect, and monitored for adverse effects.Results: After 6 weeks of treatment, mean scores on the visual analogue scale on complaints showed a nonsignificant difference of 1.84 mm (95% CI, -6.67 to 2.99 mm) in favor of nifedipine (P = .44). Mean scores on the visual analogue scale on disability showed a nonsignificant difference of 0.56 mm (95% CI, -2.97 to 4.09 mm) in favor of placebo (P = .75). There was no carry-over effect of prior study treatment. Nifedipine was associated with significantly lower systolic blood pressure and a significantly higher incidence of edema.Conclusions: In our study, nifedipine was not superior to placebo for treating chronic chilblains. These findings contrast with those of the older study and do not support routine use of nifedipine for this condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. The OPTI-SCRIPT study (Optimizing Prescribing for Older People in Primary Care, a cluster-randomized controlled trial) tested the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing PIP in primary care.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial among 21 general practitioner practices and 196 patients with PIP. Intervention participants received a complex, multifaceted intervention incorporating academic detailing; review of medicines with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms that provide recommended alternative-treatment options; and tailored patient information leaflets. Control practices delivered usual care and received simple, patient-level PIP feedback. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with PIP and the mean number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. We performed intention-to-treat analysis using random-effects regression.Results: All 21 practices and 190 patients were followed. At intervention completion, patients in the intervention group had significantly lower odds of having PIP than patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = .02). The mean number of PIP drugs in the intervention group was 0.70, compared with 1.18 in the control group (P = .02). The intervention group was almost one-third less likely than the control group to have PIP drugs at intervention completion, but this difference was not significant (incidence rate ratio = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.02; P = .49). The intervention was effective in reducing proton pump inhibitor prescribing (adjusted odds ratio = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.68; P = .04).Conclusions: The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention incorporating academic detailing with a pharmacist, and a review of medicines with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, was effective in reducing PIP, particularly in modifying prescribing of proton pump inhibitors, the most commonly occurring PIP drugs nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]