How do general practitioners and pharmacists experience antibiotic use in out-of-hours primary care? An exploratory qualitative interview study to inform a participatory action research project.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Colliers A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6169767 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Infections are the most common reason why patients consult out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. Too often there is an overprescribing of antibiotics for self-limiting infections and general practitioners (GPs) do not always choose the guideline recommended antibiotics. To improve antibiotic prescribing quality, a better understanding is needed of the (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions of GPs. This study sets out to unravel GPs' (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions in OOH primary care. We video-recorded 160 consultations on infections during OOH primary care by 21 GPs and performed video-elicitation interviews with each GP. GPs reflected on their decision-making process and communication while watching their consultation. A qualitative thematic analysis was used. GPs found that their (non) antibiotic prescribing decision-making was not only based on objective arguments, but also subconsciously influenced by their own interpretation of information. Often GPs made assumptions (about for example the patients' reason for encounter or expectations for antibiotics) without objectifying or verifying this with the patient. From the beginning of the consultation GPs follow a dichotomous thinking process: urgent versus not urgent, viral versus bacterial, antibiotics versus no antibiotics. Safety-netting is an important but difficult tool in the OOH care context, with no long-term follow-up or relationship with the patient. GPs talk about strategies they use to talk about diagnostic uncertainty, what patients can expect or should do when things do not improve and the difficulties they encounter while doing this. This video- elicitation interview study provides actionable insights in GPs' (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions during OOH consultations on infections.
| S-EPMC7148451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Repeated studies of working hours among Norwegian regular general practitioners (RGPs) have shown that the average total number of weekly working hours has remained unchanged since 1994 and up until 2014. For both male and female RGPs, the mean total weekly working hours amounted to almost 50?h in 2014. In recent years, Norwegian RGPs have become increasingly dissatisfied. They experience significantly increased workload without compensation in the form of more doctors or better payment. A study from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2018 (the RGP study) showed that Norwegian RGPs worked 55.6?h weekly (median 52.5). 25% of the respondents worked more than 62.2?h weekly. Based on data from the RGP study we investigated Norwegian RGP’s out-of-hours (OOH) work, how the working time was distributed, and to what extent the OOH work affected the regular working hours. Methods In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4640 RGPs in Norway. Each RGP reported how many minutes that were spent that particular day on various tasks during seven consecutive days. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional medical work and OOH primary health care. Differences were analysed by independent t-tests, and regression analyses. Results One thousand eighty hundred seventy-six RGPs (40.4%) responded, 640 (34.1%) had registered OOH work. Male RGPs worked on average 1.5?h more doing regular work than did females (p =?0.001) and on average 2.3?h more OOH work than females (p =?0.079). RGPs with no OOH work registered a mean of 1.0?h more clinical work than RGPs working OOH (p =?0.043). There was a large variation in OOH working hours. A linear regression analysis showed that male RGPs and RGPs in rural areas had the heaviest OOH workload. Conclusions One in three Norwegian RGPs undertook OOH work during the registration week in the RGP study. OOH work was done in addition to a sizeable regular workload as an RGP. We found small gender differences. OOH work was not compensated with reduced regular RGP work.
| S-EPMC7557051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background#KindnessByPost (KbP) is a participatory public health initiative in which people anonymously send and receive cards containing messages of goodwill with others also taking part in the programme. Quantitative evaluations of KbP consistently find evidence of improvements to people's mental wellbeing and feelings of loneliness after participation and three months later. Our aim in the present study is to develop a programme theory of KbP, which describes for whom the KbP intervention improves mental wellbeing, other reported impacts, in which contexts it has these effects, and the mechanisms by which it works.MethodsWe use a realist interviewing methodology to develop the programme theory. We conducted a focus group with the KbP executive team, and 20 one-to-one interviews with KbP participants. During analysis, a co-production working group iteratively developed a Theory of Change model comprising context-mechanism-outcome statements [CMOs] to map out the mechanisms present in KbP.ResultsWe developed 145 CMO statements, which we condensed and categorized into 32 overarching CMOs across nine thematic topics: access to scheme; pathways to involvement; resources; culture; giving post; receiving post; content of received post; community; long term impact. These CMOs set out pathways through which KbP benefited participants, including from doing something kind for someone else, of receiving post and appreciating the effort that went into it, and from the creative process of creating post and writing the messages inside them. Effects were sustained in part through people keeping the cards and through the social media communities that emerged around KbP.DiscussionBoth giving and receiving post and the sense of community benefited participants and improved their mood and feelings of connectedness with others. Connection with a stranger, rather than friends or family, was also an important feature of the initiative for participants. Our wide range of CMO pathways by which KbP produced positive outcomes may mean that the intervention is applicable or adaptable across many communities and settings. Taken together with evidence from the quantitative evaluations, KbP is potentially an effective, low-cost, and highly scalable public health intervention for reducing loneliness and improving wellbeing.
| S-EPMC10694983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of childhood oral health, little progress has been made in preventing early childhood caries. Limited information exists regarding specific daily-life and community-related factors that impede optimal oral hygiene, diet, care, and ultimately oral health for children. We sought to understand what parents of young children consider important and potentially modifiable factors and resources influencing their children's oral health, within the contexts of the family and the community. METHODS:This qualitative study employed Photovoice among 10 English-speaking parents of infants and toddlers who were clients of an urban WIC clinic in North Carolina. The primary research question was: "What do you consider as important behaviors, as well as family and community resources to prevent cavities among young children?" Five group sessions were conducted and they were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative research methodology. Inductive analyses were based on analytical summaries, double-coding, and summary matrices and were done using Atlas.ti.7.5.9 software. FINDINGS:Good oral health was associated with avoidance of problems or restorations for the participants. Financial constraints affected healthy food and beverage choices, as well as access to oral health care. Time constraints and occasional frustration related to children's oral hygiene emerged as additional barriers. Establishment of rules/routines and commitment to them was a successful strategy to promote their children's oral health, as well as modeling of older siblings, cooperation among caregivers and peer support. Community programs and organizations, social hubs including playgrounds, grocery stores and social media emerged as promising avenues for gaining support and sharing resources. CONCLUSIONS:Low-income parents of young children are faced with daily life struggles that interfere with oral health and care. Financial constraints are pervasive, but parents identified several strategies involving home care and community agents that can be helpful. Future interventions aimed to improve children's oral health must take into consideration the role of families and the communities in which they live.
| S-EPMC4993516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health threat driven by inappropriate antibiotic use, mainly in general practice and for respiratory tract infections. In Belgium, the quality of general practitioners' (GPs) antibiotic prescribing is low. To improve antibiotic use, we need a better understanding of this quality problem and corresponding interventions. A general practitioners cooperative (GPC) for out-of-hours (OOH) care presents a unique opportunity to reach a large group of GPs and work on quality improvement. Participatory action research (PAR) is a bottom-up approach that focuses on implementing change into daily practice and has the potential to empower practitioners to produce their own solutions to optimise their antibiotic prescribing. METHODS:This PAR study to improve antibiotic prescribing quality in OOH care uses a mixed methods approach. In a first exploratory phase, we will develop a partnership with a GPC and map the existing barriers and opportunities. In a second phase, we will focus on facilitating change and implementing interventions through PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles. In a third phase, antibiotic prescribing quality outside and antibiotic use during office hours will be evaluated. Equally important are the process evaluation and theory building on improving antibiotic prescribing. ETHICS:The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Antwerp University Hospital/University of Antwerp. PAR unfolds in response to the needs and issues of the stakeholders, therefore new ethics approval will be obtained at each new stage of the research. DISSEMINATION:Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing are needed now more than ever and outcomes will be highly relevant for GPCs, GPs in daily practice, national policymakers and the international scientific community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03082521; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5652575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To gain insights into the ability of general practitioners (GPs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) to meet patient demands in out-of-hours primary care by comparing the outcomes of teams with different ratios of practitioners. DESIGN:Quasi-experimental study. SETTING:A GP cooperative (GPC) in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION:Team 2 (1?NP, 3 GPs) and team 3 (2 NPs, 2 GPs) were compared with team 1 (4 GPs). Each team covered 35 weekend days. PARTICIPANTS:All 9503 patients who were scheduled for a consultation at the GPC through a nurse triage system. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the total number of consultations per provider for weekend cover between 10:00 and 18:00 hours. Secondary outcomes concerned the numbers of patients outside the NPs' scope of practice, patient safety, resource use, direct healthcare costs and GPs' performance. RESULTS:The mean number of consultations per shift was lower in teams with NPs (team 1: 93.9, team 3: 87.1; p<0.001). The mean proportion of patients outside NPs' scope of practice per hour was 9.0% (SD 6.7), and the highest value in any hour was 40%. The proportion of patients who did not receive treatment within the targeted time period was higher in teams with NPs (team 2, 5.2%; team 3, 8.3%) compared with GPs only (team 1 3.5%) (p<0.01). Team 3 referred more patients to the emergency department (14.7%) compared with team 1 (12.0%; p=0.028). In teams with NPs, GPs more often treated urgent patients (team 1: 13.2%, team 2: 16.3%, team 3: 21.4%; p<0.01) and patients with digestive complaints (team 1: 11.1%, team 2: 11.8%, team 3: 16.7%; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Primary healthcare teams with a ratio of up to two GPs and two NPs provided sufficient capacity to provide care to all patients during weekend cover. Areas of concern are the number of consultations, delay in patient care and referrals to the emergency department. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02407847.
| S-EPMC5730011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Increasingly, nurse practitioners (NPs) are deployed in teams along with general practitioners (GPs) to help meet the demand for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs in teams working out-of-hours.A descriptive qualitative study was done using a total of 27 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions. Data was collected between June, 2014 and October, 2015 at an out-of-hours primary care organisation in the Netherlands. Overall, 38 health professionals (GPs, NPs, and support staff) participated in the study. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers conducted an inductive content analysis, involving the identification of relevant items in a first phase and clustering into themes in a second phase.The following four themes emerged from the data: clarity of NP role and regulation, shared caseload and use of skills, communication concerning professional roles, trust and support in NP practice. Main factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs included a lack of knowledge regarding the NPs' scope of practice and regulations governing NP role; differences in teams in sharing caseload and using each other's skills effectively; varying support of GPs for the NP role; and limited communication between GPs and NPs regarding professional roles during the shift. Lack of collaboration was perceived to result in an increased risk of delay for patients who needed treatment from a GP, especially in teams with more NPs. Collaboration was not perceived to improve over time as teams varied across shifts.In out-of-hours primary care teams constantly change and team members are often unfamiliar with each other or other's competences. In this environment, knowledge and communication about team members' roles is continuously at stake. Especially in teams with more NPs, team members need to use each other's skills to deliver care to all patients on time.
| S-EPMC5568365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic resistance (ABR) remains a global health threat that requires urgent action. Antibiotic use is a key driver of ABR and is particularly problematic in the outpatient setting. General practitioners (GPs), the public, and pharmacists therefore play an important role in safeguarding antibiotics. In this study, we aimed to gain a better understanding of the antibiotic prescribing-use-dispensation dynamic in Malta from the perspective of GPs, pharmacists, and parents; Methods: we conducted 8 focus groups with 8 GPs, 24 pharmacists, and 18 parents between 2014 and 2016. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive content analysis; Results: Awareness on antibiotic overuse and ABR was generally high among interviewees although antibiotic use was thought to be improving. Despite this, some believed that antibiotic demand, non-compliance, and over-the-counter dispensing are still a problem. Nevertheless, interviewees believed that the public is more accepting of alternative strategies, such as delayed antibiotic prescription. Both GPs and pharmacists were enthusiastic about their roles as patient educators in raising knowledge and awareness in this context; Conclusions: While antibiotic use and misuse, and knowledge and awareness, were perceived to have improved in Malta, our study suggests that even though stakeholders indicated willingness to drive change, there is still much room for improvement.
| S-EPMC9137633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists.AimThe aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation.MethodThis was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach.ResultsMany general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost-benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs.ConclusionThe perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists.
| S-EPMC9547634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:English National Quality Requirements mandate out-of-hours primary care services to routinely audit patient experience, but do not state how it should be done. OBJECTIVES:We explored how providers collect patient feedback data and use it to inform service provision. We also explored staff views on the utility of out-of-hours questions from the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS). METHODS:A qualitative study was conducted with 31 staff (comprising service managers, general practitioners and administrators) from 11 out-of-hours primary care providers in England, UK. Staff responsible for patient experience audits within their service were sampled and data collected via face-to-face semistructured interviews. RESULTS:Although most providers regularly audited their patients' experiences by using patient surveys, many participants expressed a strong preference for additional qualitative feedback. Staff provided examples of small changes to service delivery resulting from patient feedback, but service-wide changes were not instigated. Perceptions that patients lacked sufficient understanding of the urgent care system in which out-of-hours primary care services operate were common and a barrier to using feedback to enable change. Participants recognised the value of using patient experience feedback to benchmark services, but perceived weaknesses in the out-of-hours items from the GPPS led them to question the validity of using these data for benchmarking in its current form. CONCLUSIONS:The lack of clarity around how out-of-hours providers should audit patient experience hinders the utility of the National Quality Requirements. Although surveys were common, patient feedback data had only a limited role in service change. Data derived from the GPPS may be used to benchmark service providers, but refinement of the out-of-hours items is needed.
| S-EPMC5136714 | biostudies-literature