Dataset Information

Impact of guideline awareness on the counseling of patients with acute cough among general practitioners and pharmacy personnel.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the awareness and knowledge of applicable guidelines on acute cough among general practitioners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and to compare their recommendation behavior and clinical decision making to the evidence-based recommendation in the applicable guidelines.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was performed among 303 members of an existing panel of healthcare professionals (HCPs). They were presented with a hypothetical case vignette representative of their daily practice and asked for their treatment recommendations. After being shown an excerpt from the applicable guidelines, these questions were repeated.

Results

Forty-six % of participants reported to seek information on cough and respiratory conditions very often or often. Among 12 non-prescription treatments-commonly used over-the-counter-products for acute cough, HCPs most often recommended various plant extract-based products (phytotherapeutic remedies) for the acute cough case, whereas chemically defined options such as ambroxol or N-acetyl-cysteine were recommended less often. Following presentation of the guidelines excerpt, recommendations of the phytotherapeutic remedies decreased moderately whereas that of the guideline-recommended ambroxol more than doubled. Among stated reasons for the recommendation guideline conformity increased from 5% to 35% among the top-3 reasons.

Conclusions

The recommendations for the treatment of acute cough by professionals involved in primary healthcare deviated considerably from the applicable guideline recommendation but changed after presentation of a guidelines excerpt and knowledge thereof. We conclude that dissemination of applicable guideline knowledge is relevant to improve evidence-based healthcare and clinical decision making.

SUBMITTER: Kardos P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8341580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare worldwide. It has altered service delivery and posed challenges to practitioners in relation to workload, well-being and support. Within primary care, changes in physicians' activities have been identified and innovative work solutions implemented. However, evidence is lacking regarding the impact of the pandemic on pharmacy personnel who work in primary care.AimTo explore the impact of the pandemic on the working practice (including the type of services provided) and job satisfaction of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within Scottish general practice. Due to the stressful nature of the pandemic, we hypothesise that job satisfaction will have been negatively affected.MethodsAn online questionnaire was distributed in May-July 2021, approximately 15 months since initial lockdown measures in the UK. The questionnaire was informed by previous literature and underwent expert review and piloting. Analysis involved descriptive statistics, non-parametric statistical tests and thematic analysis.Results180 participants responded (approximated 16.1% response rate): 134 pharmacists (74.4%) and 46 technicians (25.6%). Responses indicated greater involvement with administrative tasks and a reduction in the provision of clinical services, which was negatively perceived by pharmacists. There was an increase in remote working, although most participants continued to have a physical presence within general practices. Face-to-face interactions with patients reduced, which was negatively perceived by participants, and telephone consults were considered efficient yet less effective. Professional development activities were challenged by increased workloads and reduced support available. Although workplace stress was apparent, there was no indication of widespread job dissatisfaction.ConclusionThe pandemic has impacted pharmacists and technicians, but it is unknown if changes will be permanent, and there is a need to understand which changes should continue. Future research should explore the impact of altered service delivery, including remote working, on patient care.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:National competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs' awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines. METHODS:Web-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Current NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA's website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA's website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain). CONCLUSIONS:NCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.