Search

Background: How contextual factors may influence GP decisions in real life practice is poorly understood. The authors have undertaken a scoping review of antibiotic prescribing in primary care, with a focus on the interaction between context and GP decision-making, and what it means for the decisions made. Method: The authors searched Medline, Embase and Cinahl databases for English language articles published between 1946 and 2019, focusing on general practitioner prescribing of antibiotics. Articles discussing decision-making, reasoning, judgement, or uncertainty in relation to antibiotic prescribing were assessed. As no universal definition of context has been agreed, any papers discussing terms synonymous with context were reviewed. Terms encountered included contextual factors, non-medical factors, and non-clinical factors. Results: Three hundred seventy-seven full text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in the inclusion of 47. This article documented the experiences of general practitioners from over 18 countries, collected in 47 papers, over the course of 3 decades. Contextual factors fell under 7 themes that emerged in the process of analysis. These were space and place, time, stress and emotion, patient characteristics, therapeutic relationship, negotiating decisions and practice style, managing uncertainty, and clinical experience. Contextual presence was in every part of the consultation process, was vital to management, and often resulted in prescribing. Conclusion: Context is essential in real life decision-making, and yet it does not feature in current representations of clinical decision-making. With an incomplete picture of how doctors make decisions in real life practice, we risk missing important opportunities to improve decision-making, such as antibiotic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC? Methods: The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses. Results: A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increased recognition in clinical settings of the importance of documenting, understanding, and addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) to improve health and address health inequities. This study evaluated a pilot of a standardized SDOH screening questionnaire and workflow in an ambulatory clinic within a large integrated health network in Northern California. Methods: The pilot screened for SDOH needs using an 11-question Epic-compatible paper questionnaire assessing eight SDOH and health behavior domains: financial resource, transportation, stress, depression, intimate partner violence, social connections, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Eligible patients for the pilot receiving a Medicare wellness, adult annual, or new patient visits during a five-week period (February-March, 2020), and a comparison group from the same time period in 2019 were identified. Sociodemographic data (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payment type), visit type, length of visit, and responses to SDOH questions were extracted from electronic health records, and a staff experience survey was administered. The evaluation was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Results: Two-hundred eighty-nine patients were eligible for SDOH screening. Responsiveness by domain ranged from 55 to 67%, except for depression. Half of patients had at least one identified social need, the most common being stress (33%), physical activity (22%), alcohol (12%), and social connections (6%). Physical activity needs were identified more in females (81% vs. 19% in males, p <.01) and at new patient/transfer visits (48% vs. 13% at Medicare wellness and 38% at adult wellness visits, p <.05). Average length of visit was 39.8 min, which was 1.7 min longer than that in 2019. Visit lengths were longer among patients 65+ (43.4 min) and patients having public insurance (43.6 min). Most staff agreed that collecting SDOH data was relevant and accepted the SDOH questionnaire and workflow but highlighted opportunities for improvement in training and connecting patients to resources. Conclusion: Use of evidence-based SDOH screening questions and associated workflow was effective in gathering patient SDOH information and identifying social needs in an ambulatory setting. Future studies should use qualitative data to understand patient and staff experiences with collecting SDOH information in healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic various ambulatory health care models (SARS-CoV-2 contact points: Subspecialised Primary Care Practices, Fever Clinics, and Special Places for Corona-Testing) were organised in a short period in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a region in Southern Germany. The aim of these SARS-CoV-2 contact points was to ensure medical treatment for patients with (suspected) and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to assess the beliefs and practices of primary care physicians who either led a Subspecialised Primary Care Practice or a Primary Care Practice providing care as usual in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on a paper-based questionnaire in primary care physicians during the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were identified via the web page of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Baden-Wuerttemberg. The questionnaire was distributed in June and July 2020. It measured knowledge, practices, self-efficacy and fears towards SARS-CoV-2, using newly developed questions. Data was descriptively analysed. Results: One hundred fifty-five participants (92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points/ 63 leads of primary care practices) completed the questionnaire. Out of 92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points 74 stated to lead n Subspecialised Primary Care Practices. About half participants of both groups did not fear an own infection with the novel virus (between 50.8% and 62.2%), however about 75% feared financial loss. Knowledge was gained using various sources; main sources were the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (between 82.5% and 83.8%) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (RKI) (between 88.9% and 95.9%). Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident to perform anamnestic/diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001). The same was found for the confidence level regarding decision-making concerning the further treatment (p < 0.001). Several prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were adopted. Subspecialised Primary Care Practice had treated on average more patients with (suspected) COVID-19 (mean 408.12) than primary care practices (mean 83.8) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the Subspecialised Primary Care Practice that were implemented during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic contributed containment of the pandemic. Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice indicated that physical separation of patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection was easier compared to those who continued working in their own practice. Additionally, leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident in dealing with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial registration: The study has been prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00022224). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]