Why the study?
The study was conducted to explore themes underlying why anticoagulants are under-prescribed for stroke prevention in AF patients from the clinician's perspective and the characteristics of those patients.
Clinicians identify fear of bleeding, compliance, and patient worries as main barriers to anticoagulation in AF, suggesting a collaborative role for pharmacists in shared decision making.
Clinician interviews identify barriers to anticoagulation in AF; leaves open targeted strategies to improve prescribing.
Objective: To explore themes underlying why anticoagulants are under-prescribed for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients from the clinician's perspective and characteristics of those patients. Methods: Clinicians at the University of Utah Health system were recruited for semi-structured 15-minute interviews. An interview guide focused on anticoagulant prescribing practices for patients with AF. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Two reviewers independently coded passages corresponding with key themes. Results: Eleven practitioners were interviewed from cardiology, internal medicine, and family practice. Five themes were found: the role of compliance in anticoagulation decision making, the role of pharmacists in supporting clinicians, the use of shared decision making and risk communication, risk of bleeding as the main barrier to taking anticoagulants, and the variety of reasons patients have for not starting or discontinuing anticoagulants. Conclusion: Fear of bleeding was the foremost reason underlying anticoagulant underutilization in patients with AF followed by compliance, and patient worries. Communication between patients and clinicians as well as interdisciplinary teamwork are key to understanding and improving anticoagulant prescribing in AF. Innovation: Our study was the first to assess the role pharmacists play in prescribing clinician's decisions surrounding anticoagulant use in AF. Pharmacists could play an important collaborative role in SDM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: