Deprescribing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors in a Family Medicine Residency Practice Office
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed beyond their medically-approved duration of use. Long-term PPI use has been linked with numerous adverse effects and contributes to polypharmacy. This study sought to understand the effect of evidence-based education to resident and faculty physicians on deprescribing inappropriate PPIs. We hypothesized that this educational intervention would result in fewer inappropriate PPI prescriptions. METHODS: We performed a chart review on all adult patients in a family medicine residency program practice, identifying those inappropriately taking PPIs. All physicians in the practice participated in an educational intervention regarding deprescribing inappropriate PPIs and were given frequent reminders to continue their deprescribing efforts. We reviewed charts at the end of the study to identify patients with successful deprescribing attempts. RESULTS: Of the 187 patients prescribed inappropriate PPIs in the study, 100 remained on PPIs at the end of the study (46.6% success rate). There was a significant decrease in the number of patients inappropriately prescribed PPIs by each physician over the course of the study, from a mean of 17.0 (beginning) to 9.1 (end). CONCLUSION: Physician education with reminders is an effective means of reducing the number of inappropriate PPIs prescribed in a family medicine residency practice. Future studies could investigate the effectiveness of educational interventions with other medication classes that are often prescribed inappropriately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it