Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on October 18, 2005
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2006 18(2):87-94; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi084
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/2/87    most recent
mzi084v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tully, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Cantrill, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tully, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Cantrill, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 18 no. 2 © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

Review Article

The validity of explicit indicators of prescribing appropriateness

Mary Patricia Tully and Judith A. Cantrill

School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Objective. To assess, from the perspective of UK hospital doctors, the content validity and operational validity of a set of 14 previously developed explicit indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing started during a hospital admission.

Method. A combination of data extraction from medical records and qualitative interviews with a maximum variability sample of hospital doctors.

Participants. The indicators were applied to 132 new prescriptions, intended for long-term use, prescribed for 61 patients; 36 doctors, of various grades, were purposively selected for interview.

Results. Appropriate prescribing was viewed as prescribing that was indicated, necessary, evidence based (using a broad meaning of ‘evidence’) and of acceptable cost and risk-benefit ratio. These concepts applied to individual drugs for individual patients, rather than at a more general, public health level. Where drugs had failed an indicator, rationales were explored. Often, it was missing data in the medical notes that had resulted in the drug failing the indicator.

Conclusions. The 14 indicators were considered to have content validity, reflecting all aspects of appropriate prescribing discussed by the doctors. Their operational validity was less clear-cut, due to the lack of necessary data in the medical notes. This has implications for the use of explicit indicators for assessing prescribing appropriateness, as these hospital doctors did not consider that the data required for objective, systematic assessment of prescribing would ever be recorded in hospital medical notes.

Keywords: appropriateness, indicators, prescribing, validity assessment

Address reprint requests to Mary Patricia Tully, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: mary.tully{at}manchester.ac.uk

Accepted for publication September 18, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
C. Pulcini, S. Defres, I. Aggarwal, D. Nathwani, and P. Davey
Design of a 'day 3 bundle' to improve the reassessment of inpatient empirical antibiotic prescriptions
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., June 1, 2008; 61(6): 1384 - 1388.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.