The effect of a physician-targeted intervention on metoclopramide prescribing practice

Figures & data

Figure 1 Study flow diagram.

Table 1 Comparisons of the providers and patients in the intervention and nonintervention groupsa

	Providers in intervention group (N = 18)	Providers in nonintervention group (N = 20)
Specialties
General internal medicine/primary care	13	12
Nephrology	2	2
Endocrine/diabetes clinic	2	1
Gastroenterology	0	2
Geriatrics	1	1
Cardiology	0	2
Median number of patients per provider (range)	1 (1–8)	1 (1–3)
	Patients in intervention group (N = 31)	Patients in nonintervention group (N = 30)
Female sex	20 (65%)	18 (60%)
Mean age (standard deviation)	59 (16)	55 (19)
Indication for metoclopramide
Unknown	13	14
GE RD	14	12
Nausea/vomiting	2	2
Epigastric pain	1	1
Dysphagia	1	0

a Note: P > 0.05 for all comparisons.

Abbreviation: GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Table 2 Comparison of the intervention and nonintervention groups with regard to rate of metoclopramide discontinuation during the randomized trial and persistence of discontinuation

	Patients in intervention arm (N = 31)	Patients in nonintervention arm (N = 30)	Risk ratio (95% CI)
Number of patients with metoclopramide discontinued at the end of 12-week randomized trial (%)	14 (45%)	10 (33%)	1.4 (0.6–3.0)
Number of patients remained off metoclopramide during the next 6 months	13	9	NA

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.

Table 3 Rate of metoclopramide discontinuation in the nonintervention arm during the crossover phase and persistence of discontinuation

	Nonintervention group (N = 20)
Number of patients with metoclopramide discontinued 12 weeks after their physician received intervention (%)	5 (25%)
Number of patients remained off metoclopramide during the next 6 months	4