Search

Objective To examine the occurrence of and types of defensive medicine (DM), and the reasons for practicing DM in general practice. Design Prospective survey registration of consecutive consultations regarding defensive medicine defined as: Actions that are not professionally well founded but are carried out due to demands and pressure. The GPs registered the degree of defensiveness, the type(s) of defensive action(s) and the reason(s) for acting defensively. Setting Danish general practice. Subjects A total of 26 GPs registered a total of 1,758 consultations. Main outcome measures Defensive medical actions. Results Defensive actions were performed in 12% (210/1749) of all consultations. A fifth (46/210) of the defensive actions were characterised by the GPs as 'moderately' or 'highly' defensive. Frequent types of defensive actions were: blood tests, point-of-care-tests (POCTs) and referrals. Common reasons for defensive actions were: Influence from patients, 37% (78/210), concerns of overlooking severe disease, 32% (67/210) and influence from patient relatives, 12% (25/210). Conclusion Danish GPs registered self-perceived defensive actions in a prospective survey. DM was carried out in one out of eight consultations, most often due to patient influence. The most frequent defensive actions were blood tests, POCTs and referrals.

Background: Accreditation is used increasingly in health systems worldwide. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effects of accreditation, particularly in general practice. In 2016 a mandatory accreditation scheme was initiated in Denmark, and during a 3-year period all practices, as default, should undergo accreditation according to the Danish Healthcare Quality Program. The aim of this study is primarily to evaluate the effects of a mandatory accreditation scheme. Methods/design: The study is conducted as a cluster-randomized controlled trial among 1252 practices (clusters) with 2211 general practitioners in Denmark. Practices allocated to accreditation in 2016 serve as the intervention group, and practices allocated to accreditation in 2018 serve as controls. The selected outcomes should meet the following criteria: (1) a high degree of clinical relevance; (2) the possibility to assess changes due to accreditation; (3) availability of data from registers with no self-reporting data. The primary outcome is the number of prescribed drugs in patients older than 65 years. Secondary outcomes are changes in outcomes related to other perspectives of safe medication, good clinical practice and mortality. All outcomes relate to quality indicators included in the Danish Healthcare Quality Program, which is based on general principles for accreditation. Discussion: The consequences of accreditation and standard-setting processes are generally under-researched, particularly in general practice. This is the largest study in general practice with a randomized implementation approach to evaluate the clinical effects of a nation-wide mandatory accreditation scheme in general practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02762240. Registered on 24 May 2016.