Methotrexate prescribing records: a primary and secondary care audit

A. Filer, J. Freeguard1 and I. Rowe

Highfield Unit, Worcester Royal Infirmary, Newtown Branch, Newtown Road, Worcester WR5 IJG and
1 South Worcestershire PCT, Isaac Maddox House, Shrub Hill Road, Worcester WR4 9RW, UK

SIR, The Cambridgeshire Inquiry of 2000 highlighted shortcomings in methotrexate prescribing in both primary and secondary care which led ultimately to the death of a patient [1]. Specific recommendations stated that record-keeping and amendment should be rigorously maintained in general practitioner (GP) surgeries as well as in hospitals; that warning and safety prompts should be programmed into GP prescribing and pharmacy labelling software; and that doses of methotrexate on prescriptions should be explicit and the term ‘as directed’ should not be used. The development of patient-held records was suggested in order to facilitate GPs' access to patient records during house calls and out-of-hours consultations. The Inquiry also judged that the community use of 10 mg tablets is questionable due to their close resemblance to 2.5 mg tablets.

As part of a review of prescribing and monitoring protocols for disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in Worcestershire, we undertook a study of methotrexate record-keeping in partnership with a primary care group comprising nine practices. Our primary aim was to compare record-keeping of methotrexate dosage by hospital specialists, GPs and community pharmacists in addition to establishing patients' own understanding of their correct dose. Secondary aims were to collect information on the prescription of 10 mg tablets and the carriage of patient-held records. In Worcestershire the latter take the form of shared-care monitoring booklets, which are given to patients starting DMARDs.

Eighty-seven patients taking methotrexate for rheumatological disease were identified from primary care group computer records. Methotrexate dose information was extracted simultaneously from four sources for each patient: (i) telephone interview with the patient; (ii) hospital notes and computer records of GP letters; (iii) GP computer prescribing records; and (iv) community pharmacy records. Interpretation of data took account of the timing of communications between record-keepers and the presence of hospital letters in GP notes. The dose of methotrexate recommended by the hospital specialist was taken as a reference, provided it was clearly specified in the hospital records.

Only 48 patients (55%) had identical methotrexate dose records in all four areas. Of patients with record-keeping errors, 32 (37%) had an error in only one area; however, six (7%) had errors in two areas, and for a single patient all four sources gave differing information. The percentage of patient records with errors by source of data is shown in Table 1Go. Of six patients (7%) who gave incorrect doses, four were self-regulating (adjusting their own dosage) and two were confused about their dose. Although hospital letters to GPs did not convey the methotrexate dose routinely, information about dose changes was indicated in all but two cases. GP computer prescribing records constituted the largest source of error, due to either failure to update computer records from changes specified in hospital letters (21 cases, 24%), or the use of the term ‘as directed’ instead of explicit doses (15 cases, 17%). Community pharmacy records were available for 73 of the 87 patients and they followed GP prescriptions correctly in 96% of patients. The 10 mg tablets were prescribed to 15 patients, with 10 patients prescribed both strengths simultaneously. The 10 mg tablets contributed directly to record-keeping errors in four cases. At interview only 48 patients (55%) still possessed patient-held records. Of these records, only 31 (65%) were up to date. Overall only 16 patients (18%) carried up-to-date records at all times.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Percentage of patient records with errors by source of data

 
This study suggests that significant improvements are required for methotrexate record-keeping in Worcestershire to meet the recommendations of the Cambridgeshire Inquiry. Failure to update GP records and the use of the term ‘as prescribed’ are the major problems to be addressed. Our study revealed limited use of patient-held records, which has also been demonstrated in other specialities. Studies in oncology, primary care and psychiatry confirm a similarly poor level of uptake, at or below 50% [25]. Unless such records are actively built into the system of patient review at primary and secondary care levels, their benefit in terms of patient safety will be restricted.

We found that 4.6% of patients adjusted their own methotrexate dose. The method used may bias towards underestimation of such behaviour, but this low figure probably reflects the close monitoring of therapy and regular patient follow-up. Our study also demonstrates the potential dangers resulting from community prescription of 10 mg methotrexate tablets. While supplies in hospital are necessary for oncology purposes, we would question the requirement for continued availability of the 10 mg methotrexate tablet within the community. <@?twb=.3w>By restricting use to 2.5 mg tablets, a considerable number of potential prescribing errors would be avoided.

Change of local practice is already occurring following this study. Hospital letters will clearly specify the methotrexate dose at each consultation. In primary care all computer records will be updated with the removal of ‘as prescribed’ instructions, and a policy to avoid the use of 10 mg tablets in the community will be introduced. The local patient-held record system is under review. This study reinforces in a different locality some of the concerns raised in Cambridgeshire and suggests that other units should audit their methotrexate prescribing records. Rheumatology units need to work closely in partnership with primary care to improve practice if methotrexate-related morbidity is to be avoided.

Notes

Correspondence to: I. Rowe. E-mail: a.filer{at}bham.ac.uk Back

References

  1. Cambridgeshire Health Authority. Methotrexate toxicity: an inquiry into the death of a Cambridgeshire patient in April 2000. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Health Authority, 2000.
  2. Williams JG, Cheung WY, Chetwynd N et al. Pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate the use of patient held records for the continuing care of patients with cancer. Qual Health Care 2001;10:159–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Drury M, Yudkin P, Harcourt J et al. Patients with cancer holding their own records: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:105–10.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Atkin PA, Finnegan TP, Ogle SJ, Shenfield GM. Are medication record cards useful? Med J Aust 1995;162:300–1.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Warner JP, King M, Blizard R, McClenahan Z, Tang S. Patient-held shared care records for individuals with mental illness. Randomised controlled evaluation. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177:319–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Accepted 8 August 2002





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Filer, A.
Articles by Rowe, I.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Filer, A.
Articles by Rowe, I.
Related Collections
Rheumatoid Arthritis