Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners

Background Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing. Methods All 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT. Results The implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs’ professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance ( coherence ). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process ( cognitive participation ) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP ( collective action ). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels ( reflexive monitoring ). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees. Conclusion NPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs’ professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.