Abstract
Background Data analysis can be used to identify signals suggestive of variation in treatment choice or clinical outcome. Analyses to date have generally focused on an hypothesis-driven approach.
Methods Here we report an innovative hypothesis-blind approach (calculating chemical-class proportions for every chemical substance prescribed in each Clinical Commissioning Group and ranking chemicals by (a) their kurtosis and (b) a ratio between inter-centile differences) applied to England’s national prescribing data, and demonstrate how this identified unusual prescribing of two antipsychotics.
Outcomes We identified that, while promazine and pericyazine are barely used by most clinicians, they make up a substantial proportion of all antipsychotic prescribing in two small geographic regions in England.
Interpretation Data-driven approaches can be effective at identifying unusual clinical choices. More widespread adoption of such approaches, combined with clinician and decision-maker engagement could lead to better optimised patient care.
Funding NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford; Health Foundation; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research and Research for Patient Benefit
Evidence before this study Identifying variation in clinical activity typically employs a traditional approach whereby measures are prospectively defined, and adherence then assessed in data. We are aware of no prior work using data science techniques hypothesis-blind to systematically identify outliers for any given treatment choice or clinical outcome (numerators) as a proportion of automatically generated denominators.
Added value of this study Here we report an innovative hypothesis-blind approach applied to England’s national prescribing data, to identify chemical substances with substantial prescribing patterns between organisations. As illustrative examples we show that promazine and pericyazine, while rarely used by most clinicians, made up a substantial proportion of all antipsychotic prescribing in two small geographic regions in England.
Implications of all the available evidence The choice of antipsychotics between English regions could be further investigated using qualitative methods to explore the implications for patient care. More broadly, data-driven approaches can be effective at identifying unusual clinical choices. More widespread adoption of such approaches, combined with clinician and decision-maker engagement could lead to better optimised patient care.
Competing Interest Statement
Authors declare the following: BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK and OM work for the NHS and are seconded to the DataLab. All other University of Oxford authors are employed on BG's grants.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by The NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, A Health Foundation grant (Award Reference Number 7599); A National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research (SPCR) grant (Award Reference Number 327); the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0418-20036) and by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study uses exclusively open, publicly available data, available from the NHS BSA. The specific subsets of data we used are available in the linked repository.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://github.com/ebmdatalab/kurtosis-pericyazine
