Dataset Information

Risks of use and non-use of antibiotics in primary care: qualitative study of prescribers' views.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The emergence of antimicrobial resistance has led to increasing efforts to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics in primary care, but potential hazards from bacterial infection continue to cause concern. This study investigated how primary care prescribers perceive risk and safety concerns associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing. METHODS:Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted with primary care prescribers from 10 general practices in an urban area and a shire town in England. A thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS:Thirty participants were recruited, including twenty-three general practitioners, five nurses and two pharmacists. Three main themes were identified: risk assessment, balancing treatment risks and negotiating decisions and risks. Respondents indicated that their decisions were grounded in clinical risk assessment, but this was informed by different approaches to antibiotic use, with most leaning towards reduced prescribing. Prescribers' perceptions of risk included the consequences of both inappropriate prescribing and inappropriate withholding of antibiotics. Sepsis was viewed as the most concerning potential outcome of non-prescribing, leading to possible patient harm and potential litigation. Risks of antibiotic prescribing included antibiotic resistant and Clostridium difficile infections, as well as side effects, such as rashes, that might lead to possible mislabelling as antibiotic allergy. Prescribers elicited patient preferences for use or avoidance of antibiotics to inform management strategies, which included educational advice, advice on self-management including warning signs, use of delayed prescriptions and safety netting. CONCLUSIONS:Attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing are evolving, with reduced antibiotic prescribing now being approached more systematically. The safety trade-offs associated with either use or non-use of antibiotics present difficulties especially when prescribing decisions are inconsistent with patients' expectations.

SUBMITTER: Boiko O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574941 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risks of use and non-use of antibiotics in primary care: qualitative study of prescribers' views.

Boiko Olga O Burgess Caroline C Fox Robin R Ashworth Mark M Gulliford Martin C MC

BMJ open 20201019 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>The emergence of antimicrobial resistance has led to increasing efforts to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics in primary care, but potential hazards from bacterial infection continue to cause concern. This study investigated how primary care prescribers perceive risk and safety concerns associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted with primary care prescribers from 10 general practices in an urban ar ...[more]

PMID: 33077568

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLesotho experienced high rates of maternal (566/100,000 live births) and under-five mortality (72.9/1000 live births). A 2013 national assessment found centralized healthcare management in Ministry of Health led to fragmented, ineffective district health team management. Launched in 2014 through collaboration between the Ministry of Health and Partners In Health, Lesotho's Primary Health Care Reform (LPHCR) aimed to improve service quality and quantity by decentralizing healthcare management to the district level. We conducted a qualitative study to explore health workers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of LPHCR in enhancing the primary health care system.MethodsWe conducted 21 semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with healthcare workers and Ministry of Health officials purposively sampled from various levels of Lesotho's health system, including the central Ministry of Health, district health management teams, health centers, and community health worker programs in four pilot districts of the LPHCR initiative. The World Health Organization's health systems building blocks framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interviews assessed health care workers' perspectives on the impact of the LPHCR initiative on the six-health system building blocks: service delivery, health information systems, access to essential medicines, health workforce, financing, and leadership/governance. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis.ResultsParticipants described benefits of decentralization, including improved efficiency in service delivery, enhanced accountability and responsiveness, increased community participation, improved data availability, and better resource allocation. Participants highlighted how the reform resulted in more efficient procurement and distribution processes and increased recognition and status in part due to the empowerment of district health management teams. However, participants also identified limited decentralization of financial decision-making and encountered barriers to successful implementation, such as staff shortages, inadequate management of the village health worker program, and a lack of clear communication regarding autonomy in utilizing and mobilizing donor funds.ConclusionOur study findings indicate that the implementation of decentralized primary health care management in Lesotho was associated a positive impact on health system building blocks related to primary health care. However, it is crucial to address the implementation challenges identified by healthcare workers to optimize the benefits of decentralized healthcare management.

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization of health care has opened up for new ways to involve and engage patients. With this, increased attention has been put on digital patient portals. There exists some research on patient portals for adolescent patients in general and for adults in mental health care. However, no studies on patient portals for adolescents in mental health care have been identified in a recent review. The aim was therefore to explore the views on using patient portals for adolescents in mental health care among persons involved in and/or being affected by the introduction of a patient portal.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted using individual semi-structured interviews with 14 persons who were healthcare providers in child and adolescent mental health care, young representatives from the user panel, or persons affiliated with an EHR-project introducing a patient portal. The main questions addressed their views on introducing patient portals for adolescents in mental health care and how patient portals and access to clinical notes can affect them and their treatment.ResultsThe findings were categorised into four main themes; "Does access to a patient portal help or harm adolescents?", "Who decides access?", "Mostly a political goal" and "Need for support and competency". Informants mentioned situations in which both adolescents' and parents' access to a patient portal could help adolescents in mental health care, but also where it could potentially harm their treatment and threaten confidentiality. Most informants thought that healthcare providers should have the autonomy to determine which information should be shared with whom, but also requested guidelines to ensure equal practice and support in difficult situations. Some perceived patient portals as the result of a political decision, rather than healthcare providers´ wishes, while others described it as a necessary development towards democratization.ConclusionThe informants' views varied from thinking that a patient portal could support adolescents in mental health care, to worrying that it could be detrimental to the treatment. Informants emphasized that the management should facilitate training and support for healthcare providers in using patient portals and telehealth.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").MethodsIn March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.ResultsOf 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

Project description:BackgroundThe potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of future technology on key tasks in primary care.MethodsIn June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of future technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey.ResultsComments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of future technology, (2) potential benefits of future technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of future technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians.ConclusionsThis study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.

Dataset Information

Risks of use and non-use of antibiotics in primary care: qualitative study of prescribers' views.

Publications

Risks of use and non-use of antibiotics in primary care: qualitative study of prescribers' views.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets