Abstract
Rational prescribing tools can be used by individual prescribers, organisations, and researchers to evaluate the quality of prescribing for research and quality improvement purposes. A literature search showed that there is only one tool for evaluating rational prescribing for paediatric patients in hospital and outpatient settings. The Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions (POPI) tool was developed in France and comprises 105 criteria. The aim of this study was to modify this tool to facilitate its use in paediatric practice in the United Kingdom (UK). POPI criteria were compared to relevant UK clinical guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network and the British National Formulary for Children. Where guidelines differed, criteria were modified to reflect UK guidance. If there were no relevant guidelines or directly contradictory guidelines, criteria were removed. Overall, no change was made to 49 criteria. There were 29 modified to concord with UK guidelines. Four criteria were reduced to two criteria due to being linked in single guidelines. Twenty-three criteria were omitted, due to the absence of relevant UK guidance or directly conflicting UK practice, including one entire clinical category (mosquitos). One category title was amended to parallel UK terminology. The modified POPI (UK) tool comprises of eighty criteria and is the first rational prescribing tool for the evaluation of prescribing for children in hospital and outpatient settings in the UK.
1. Introduction
Rational prescribing describes practices aimed to optimise the use of medicines, encompassing safety, clinical effectiveness, access, and financial considerations. The WHO has defined rational prescribing as “when patients receive the appropriate medicines, in doses that meet their own individual requirements, for an adequate period of time, and at the lowest cost both to them and the community” [1]. Rational prescribing has been considered a problem mainly for low and lower middle-income countries, but it is increasingly being recognized as a problem in high-income countries [2,3].
Rational prescribing tools have been used, particularly in older adult medicine, as both research and quality improvement tools to investigate and improve rational prescribing [4]. These tools provide their users, whether individual prescribers, organizations, or research groups, with an objective measurement tool for the quality of prescribing according to rational prescribing principles. This facilitates research into factors involved in irrational prescribing, comparison across time or between groups of prescribers, organizations, services, or geographical regions, and the assessment of the efficacy of quality improvement interventions.
Children are a population particularly vulnerable to irrational prescribing due to the relative paucity of research supporting the paediatric use of medicines, with many medicines prescribed off-label, and children often excluded from drug trials.
The Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions (POPI) tool was published in 2013 [5]. It was the first rational prescribing tool for use in paediatrics worldwide. The tool comprises explicit criteria based on French, American, and UK guidelines. The selection of clinical indications was based upon French prevalence data and the criteria were selected by Delphi consensus. In total, there are 105 “propositions” in the POPI tool, which are either indicators of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (for example, ineffective treatments) or potentially inappropriate omissions (such as highly effective first-line treatments).
Given the variation in the prevalence of disease, the availability of different formularies, and the diversity in paediatric practice internationally, the tool is not applicable outside of France. The only other extant rational prescribing tool for paediatric use is the potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) indicators [6], which was developed exclusively for use in primary care settings. We therefore sought to modify the POPI tool for the application in UK paediatric practice in hospitals and outpatient settings by amending it to concord with UK clinical guidelines.
The aims of our study were twofold.
Firstly, to evaluate the applicability of the POPI tool to practice outside France by comparing the criteria to UK formulary and clinical guidelines.
Secondly, to modify the tool, where necessary, for application to UK paediatric practice and therefore to facilitate further evaluation of the tool using UK prescribing data.
2. Materials and Methods
The 105 propositions of the POPI criteria were compared by one researcher (FC) to evidence-based UK clinical guidelines and clinical knowledge summaries from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [7], the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) [8], the British National Formulary for Children (cBNF) [9], and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [10]. The national guidance from NICE, SIGN and the cBNF were preferred; EMA recommendations were referred to when no national guidelines were available. This process used the most recent guidelines available on 1st October 2015. Where amendments were made, the specific related guideline is cited.
Following the comparison with the guidelines, there were three possible outcomes:
- Guidelines concurred with the POPI propositions. No change was made.
- There was partial discordance. POPI propositions were amended to match UK guidance.
- There was no guidance available or the proposition was in complete discordance with guidance, the proposition was omitted.
The final wording of the modified POPI criteria was reached as consensus in consultation with two paediatric clinical pharmacology consultants.
3. Results
Overall, no change was made to 49 propositions. There were 29 amended to concord more closely with UK guidelines. Four were reduced into two propositions, as they were closely related and the relevant guidelines referred to them together, simplifying the tool. Twenty-three were omitted altogether, which included the omission of an entire category. One category title was amended, as the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity is not in use in the UK.
The most substantial single change was the omission of the category of “mosquitos”. There are currently no areas in the UK where insect-borne diseases are endemic. This was not considered applicable to UK practice and therefore the category comprising of seven propositions, was removed. Some suggest that the viable habitat of mosquito vectors for vivax malaria may expand to the UK in the future, and if this were to occur, then this might be an appropriate area to target rational prescribing.
Twelve propositions were omitted due to a lack of relevant clinical guidelines (Table 1). The majority of these related to inappropriate prescriptions for medicines that are either not used in the UK, e.g., Diosmectite, or not used by the rectal route, e.g., rectal paracetamol.
Table 1.
Propositions omitted due to the absence of relevant UK clinical guidelines.
Four propositions were also omitted where UK clinical guidelines contradicted the proposition. These are listed in Table 2 with the relevant conflicting UK guideline. They included the use of nitrofurantoin for urinary tract infections in young children; fluoride supplements in infants under the age of six months: the use of setrons (5-HT3 antagonists) for nausea/vomiting in association with chemotherapy; and isotretinoin for adolescent acne.
Table 2.
Propositions omitted due to conflicting UK clinical guidelines.
Two propositions were combined with closely related propositions, where the recommendations were linked in a single UK guideline in order to make the modified tool as concise as possible. The original and combined propositions are shown below in Table 3 with the related UK guidance. These related to the use of medicines for infants with bronchiolitis and the use of antibiotics in children with otitis media/upper respiratory tract infections.
Table 3.
Propositions with shared UK guidelines and the simplified combined proposition.
There were 19 propositions that related to inappropriate prescriptions, and 10 propositions that related to inappropriate omissions that were amended to more closely concord with UK guidelines (Table 4 and Table 5). In some instances, the age was changed, e.g., loperamide is considered inappropriate in the UK in children under the age of four years old, whereas in France it is under the age of three years old. Some medicines such as benzyl benzoate are not recommended at all in children in the UK. Some medicines such as sodium cromoglycate are not recommended at all in France, whereas in the UK it can be used for exercise-induced asthma. In addition, the category title of “Attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity” was amended to “Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, as attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity is not recognised in UK clinical guidelines.
Table 4.
Inappropriate prescription propositions modified to concord with UK guidelines.
Table 5.
Omission of prescription propositions modified to concord with UK guidelines.
Others involved minor changes in relation to dosing and age for penicillin prophylaxis for children with sickle cell disease; patient groups for palivizumab: or vitamin use in infants.
The resulting modified POPI criteria therefore comprise 80 propositions assessing rational prescribing for children in accordance with up-to-date UK guidelines (see Table 6).
Table 6.
The modified POPI (UK) tool.
4. Discussion
The POPI criteria were modified to develop a list of potentially inappropriate prescriptions and omissions for children in the UK.
Over half of the propositions of the POPI criteria were altered. The majority of those changes were subtle modifications to bring the wording of propositions more closely in line with the specific wording of UK clinical guidelines. In other cases, the propositions were directly in contradiction of relevant guidelines and were amended accordingly. In order for this tool to be useful in appraising rational prescribing in the UK, it is important that prescribers are being measured against the specific standards they are striving for, and this would also facilitate straightforward interventions using UK guidelines for education and service improvement.
For 22 propositions, there were no relevant UK clinical guidelines. Absence from guidelines does not necessarily invalidate the recommendations of those propositions but the propositions were omitted, as they appeared to relate to the irrational use of medicines that do not appear to be prevalent in the UK. In some cases, the propositions related to medications not available in the UK. For instance, in the case of diosmectite for diarrhoea, there is some emerging evidence supporting its use [11] but this is not reflected in the availability of the product in the UK.
In other cases, differing national practices may explain the absence if the type of irrational prescribing described is already rare in UK practise. This explanation likely underlies guidance about rectally administered drugs including paracetamol per rectum for pain and suppositories for cough. The cultural difference that may give rise to this variance in clinical practice was recognised in the European Medicines Agency Guideline on pharmaceutical development of medicines for paediatric use [12] when discussing medication acceptability in different countries, giving the example that “the rectal route of administration is not generally favoured in the UK”.
Two of the omitted propositions, in relation to sucrose for painful procedures in infants and nitrofurantoin as prophylaxis for urinary infection, may be absent from national UK guidelines because these are areas where there is not a national consensus of best practice. In reviewing these topics, local guidelines were found to differ, including some recommending nitrofurantoin for that purpose [13,14] and some preferring breast or bottle-feeding over sucrose, recommending contraindications and qualifying the guideline according to gestation and the age of the infant [15,16]. In the absence of a unifying national guideline on these topics, they were therefore not considered to be good candidates for screening prescribing practice nationally.
Four propositions were omitted due to the existence of UK clinical guidelines that were in direct conflict with the original proposition (see Table 2).
Three of these appear to have been included as potentially inappropriate prescriptions in the original French tool due to the risk of interactions or side effects. One related to nitrofurantoin for the treatment of urinary infections. According to the report describing the development of the original POPI tool, this proposition was derived from a statement issued by AFSSAPS (the French Agency for the Safety of Health Products, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé) in 2011, warning of cases of severe hepatic and pulmonary complications following long-term treatment with nitrofurantoin [17].
The cBNF does recommend monitoring liver function and for pulmonary symptoms if prescribing nitrofurantoin long-term, but it is licensed and indicated in acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections for children aged three months and older [9] and is second-line for children aged three months and older in the most recent NICE guideline NG109 [7].
The second related to isotretinoin and tetracycline antibiotics. This appears to be derived from a Good Practice Recommendation from AFSSAP describing isotretinoin as contraindicated with tetracyclines due to the reported occurrence of benign intracranial hyptertension with this combination [18]. This risk is recorded in the cBNF as a possible interaction, rated as “serious” with an anecdotal evidence base [9]. The combination is not recorded as a contraindication and combined topical retinoids and oral tetracyclines and recommended in the NICE Clinical Knowledge Summary.
The third related to fluoride supplements before age six months. The related French guideline, an AFSAPPS statement in 2008, recommended that fluoride containing supplements such as toothpaste, commence when teeth erupt, on average at age six months [19]. This statement, like the relevant UK guidelines, discusses the risk of dental fluorosis with excess fluoride consumption during tooth development and recommends lower dose fluoride in toothpaste for young children. Both the NICE and SIGN guidelines quoted in Table 2 acknowledge the risk of dental fluorosis and state that the benefit of reduced caries favours starting fluoride supplementation as soon as teeth erupt with no definitive lower age limit of benefit to the child.
These all appear to reflect differing risk tolerance between the French and UK guidelines. In order that the modified tool reflects what is considered nationally to be good practice, the propositions were therefore omitted from the modified tool.
The fourth omitted proposition listed, “The use of setrons (5-HT3 antagonists) for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting”, as a potentially inappropriate prescription. It was not clear what evidence was used to develop this proposition as none of the references in the report describing the development of the original tool related to chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting. One reference from the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended ondansetron as an anti-emetic for children [20]. It is possible that the inclusion of this criterion in the original tool constitutes a typographical error, and that it was intended to read as an inappropriate omission, given the importance of treating chemotherapy-associated nausea. It was therefore felt not to accurately reflect rational prescribing and was omitted from the modified tool.
Following the described amendments, the modified POPI(UK) tool comprises eighty criteria describing potentially inappropriate prescriptions or omissions. This tool is intended to evaluate the quality of prescribing for children in both hospital and outpatient settings, and is not limited to a specific group of prescribers. Similar tools for evaluating rational prescribing for older adults have facilitated a broad range of research, including research into quality of prescribing across different settings [21], studies into healthcare outcomes associated with irrational prescribing [22], and to predict adverse health outcomes in patient groups [23]. The tool is not intended for routine use by individual prescribers, as it requires experience to use.
5. Conclusions
The modified POPI (UK) criteria comprise the first screening tool available to assess rational prescribing for children in UK hospitals and outpatient settings. Clinical validation and reliability studies are needed and planned by the authors in order to evaluate the usability and reliability of this tool, which it is hoped will be used to study the rational use of medicines in children in the UK.
Author Contributions
Data curation, F.C.; Investigation, F.C.; Methodology, F.C.; Supervision, I.C., S.C. and H.S.; Writing—original draft, F.C.; Writing—review & editing, I.C., S.C. and H.S.
Funding
This research was funded by the Derbyshire Children’s Research Fund.
Acknowledgments
In this section you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for experiments).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- WHO. The Rational Use of Drugs. Report of the Conference of Experts; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Choonara, I. Rational prescribing is important in all settings. Arch. Dis. Child. 2013, 98, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rieder, M. Do we prescribe medicines rationally? Arch. Dis. Child. 2015, 100, 958–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaufmann, C.P.; Tremp, R.; Hersberger, K.E.; Lampert, M.L. Inappropriate prescribing: A systematic overview of published assessment tools. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2014, 70, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weil, T.; Angoulvant, F.; Boulkedid, R.; Alberti, C.; Brion, F.; Bourdon, O.; Prot-Labarthe, S. POPI: A tool to identify inappropriate prescribing in pediatrics. Consensus validation. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2013, 35, 1264. [Google Scholar]
- Barry, E.; O’Brien, K.; Moriarty, F.; Cooper, J.; Redmond, P.; Hughes, C.M.; Bennett, K.; Fahey, T.; Smith, S.M. PIPc study: Development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e012079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/ (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- The Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network. Available online: https://www.sign.ac.uk/ (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- The British National Formulary for Children. Available online: https://bnfc.nice.org.uk/ (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- The European Medicines Agency. Available online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- Das, R.R.; Sankar, J.; Naik, S.S. Efficacy and safety of diosmectite in acute childhood diarrhoea: A meta-analysis. Arch. Dis. Child. 2015, 100, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Pharmaceutical Development of Medicines for Paediatric Use. 2013. Available online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/ (accessed on 24 October 2013).
- Nottingham University Hospitals. Guideline: The Investigation and Management of Urinary Tract Infection in Children. Available online: http://www.nuh.nhs.uk/ (accessed on 24 October 2013).
- East Cheshire NHS Trust. Paediatric Antibiotic Policy for Children 1 Month–18 Years. Available online: http://www.eastcheshire.nhs.uk/About-The-Trust/policies/A/Antibiotic Policy-Paediatric ECT2037.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2013).
- Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust. Protocol for the Administration of Sucrose 2014. Available online: http://www.formulary.cht.nhs.uk/pdf,_doc_files_etc/MMC/055_Sucrose.076.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2015).
- Nottingham University Hospitals. Guideline: Oral Sucrose for the Management of Procedural Pain. Available online: http://www.nuh.nhs.uk/ (accessed on 24 October 2013).
- AFSSAPS. Nitrofurantoïne et Risque de Survenue d’Effets Indésirables Hépatiques et Pulmonaires lors de Traitements Prolongés; Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- AFSAPPS. Recommandations de Bonne Pratique; Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- AFSAPPS. Utilisation du Fluor dans la Prévention de la Carie Dentaire Avant l’Âge de 18 Ans; Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing acute gastroenteritis among children: Oral rehydration, maintenance, and nutritional therapy. Pediatrics 2004, 114, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aparasu, R.R.; Mort, J.R. Inappropriate prescribing for the elderly: Beers criteria-based review. Ann. Pharmacother. 2000, 34, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jano, E.; Aparasu, R.R. Healthcare outcomes associated with beers’ criteria: A systematic review. Ann. Pharmacother. 2007, 41, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, C.M.; Liu, P.Y.Y.; Yang, Y.H.K.; Yang, Y.C.; Wu, C.F.; Lu, F.H. Use of the Beers criteria to predict adverse drug reactions among first-visit elderly outpatients. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2005, 25, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).