Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T16:28:41.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Evidence-based prescribing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Molly Courtenay
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Matt Griffiths
Affiliation:
University of the West of England, Bristol
Get access

Summary

According to Sackett et al. (1996) evidence-based healthcare is: ‘judiciously and conscientiously applying the best evidence to prevent, detect and treat disorders’.

This is an ambitious statement as the barriers to disseminating and applying evidence are both numerous and multifaceted.

The discipline of evidence-based medicine (EBM) is relatively new to nurses; traditionally they have based their clinical decisions on a combination of experience, observation, opinion, published material and personal research (Trinder and Reynolds 2000). The introduction of clinical governance, which emphasises accountability, quality and efficiency, has challenged this approach and it is no longer acceptable to base clinical decisions on personal opinion. Decision making must be evidence-based.

Prescribing is only one stage in making a rational treatment decision. Other stages include drawing on individual clinical expertise, taking account of patient choice and considering available resources. This needs to follow a ‘step-wise’ approach, starting with defining the patient's problem, which requires specific clinical skills and expertise, including undertaking a detailed history and physical examination, interpreting test results etc. In some circumstances, treatment may be initiated before a firm diagnosis has been made. In this situation, the clinician has to draw upon the best information available at the time and their knowledge of the patient.

It is essential that the patient is involved in making the treatment decisions. The patient's beliefs, expectations and preferences should be identified and acknowledged alongside existing clinical evidence. If a treatment is unacceptable to a patient, they are unlikely to adhere to the regime.

Evidence-based clinical practice is an approach to decision making.

Type
Chapter
Information
Independent and Supplementary Prescribing
An Essential Guide
, pp. 119 - 129
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,Audit Commission (2001). A spoonful of sugar: medicines management in NHS hospitals. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Barber, N. (1995). What constitutes good prescribing?British Medical Journal 310: 923–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, C.A. et al. (2000). Patients unvoiced agenda in general practice consultations: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal 320: 1246–1250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucher, H.C., Weinbacher, M. et al. (1994). Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. British Medical Journal 309: 761–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee on Safety of Medicines/Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Monitoring the safety and quality of medicines: The Yellow Card Scheme. See http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk
Cox, K. et al. (2003). A systematic review of communication between patients and health care professionals about medicine-taking and prescribing. London: GKT Concordance Unit. King's CollegeGoogle Scholar
,Department of Health (2000a). Pharmacy in the future: implementing the NHS plan. A programme for pharmacy in the National Health Service. London: Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
,Department of Health (2000b). Organisation with a memory. London: Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
,Department of Health (2000c). The NHS Plan: A plan for investment, A plan for reform. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Drummond, M.F. et al. (1997). How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice A. Are the results of the study valid? Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 277: 1552–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egger, M. et al. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Framingham study. See www.framingham.com/heart.
Gray, J.M. (1997). Evidence-based healthcare. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. (2006). How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine (third edition). London: BMJ books.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (2002). Research Methods (1). The Pharmaceutical Journal 268: 839–841.Google Scholar
Jones, I, Britten, N. (1998). Why do some patients not cash in their prescriptions?British Journal of General Practice 48: 903–905.Google Scholar
Moore, A, McQuay, H. (1997). What is an NNT?Hayward Medical Communications Ltd.Google Scholar
O'Brien, B. et al. (1997). How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for patients? Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 277: 1802–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parish, P.A. (1973). Drug prescribing- the concern of all. Journal of the Royal Society of Health. Cited in: Barber, N. (1995). What constitutes good prescribing? British Medical Journal 310: 923–925.Google Scholar
Philips, C.Thompson, G. (1997). What is cost-effectiveness?Hayward Medical Communications Ltd.Google Scholar
,Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1998). From compliance to concordance: achieving shared goals in medicines taking. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society.Google Scholar
Sackett, D.L., Rosenburg, W.M.C. et al. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 312: 71–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trinder, L, Reynolds, S. (eds) (2000). Evidence-based Practice: A critical appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRef
Wally, T. et al. (eds) (2004). Pharmacoeconomics. Churchill Livingstone.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×