Search

Abstract Background We previously performed a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) in general practices and older adult care organizations in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. We found that a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention (ASI) substantially reduced antibiotic use for suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs) in frail older adults compared with usual care. We aimed to evaluate the implementation process of the ASI to provide recommendations for clinical practice. Methods We conducted a process evaluation alongside the cluster RCT. The ASI consisted of a decision-tool and a toolbox, which were implemented using a participatory-action-research (PAR) approach with sessions for education and evaluation. We documented the implementation process of the intervention and administered a questionnaire to health care professionals (HCPs) from participating organizations in the intervention and usual care clusters. We evaluated the multiple components of the intervention and its implementation following a structured framework. Results The questionnaire was completed by 254 HCPs from the 38 participating clusters. All components were largely delivered according to plan and evaluated as useful. The decision-tool and toolbox materials were reported to facilitate decision-making on UTIs. Regarding the PAR approach, educational sessions focusing on the distinction between UTIs and asymptomatic bacteriuria were held in all 19 intervention clusters. In 17 out of these 19 clusters, evaluation sessions took place, which were reported to help remind HCPs to implement the ASI. During both sessions, HCPs valued the reflection that took place and the resulting awareness of their behavior. It allowed them to explore implementation barriers and to tailor their local implementation process to overcome these. For example, HCPs organized extra educational sessions or revised local policies to incorporate the use of the decision-tool. Various HCPs took key roles in implementation. Staff changes and the COVID-19 pandemic were important contextual barriers. Conclusions We found each component of the multifaceted ASI and its implementation to have added value in the process to improve antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTIs in a heterogeneous older adult care setting. We recommend using a multifaceted, multidisciplinary approach that enables HCPs to reflect on their current practice and accordingly tailor local implementation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03970356. Registered on May 31, 2019.

Abstract Background Telephone triage has been established in many countries as a response to the challenge of non-urgent use of out-of-hours primary care services. However, limited evidence is available regarding the effect of training interventions on clinicians’ telephone consultation skills and patient outcomes. Methods This was a pragmatic randomized controlled educational intervention for telephone triage nurses in 59 Norwegian out-of-hours general practitioners’ (GPs) cooperatives, serving 59% of the Norwegian population. Computer-generated randomization was performed at the level of out-of-hours GP cooperatives, stratified by the population size. Thirty-two out-of-hours GP cooperatives were randomized to intervention. One cooperative did not accept the invitation to participate in the educational programme, leaving 31 cooperatives in the intervention group. The intervention comprised a 90-minute e-learning course and 90-minute group discussion about respiratory tract infections (RTIs), telephone communication skills and local practices. We aimed to assess the effect of the intervention on out-of-hours attendance and describe the distribution of RTIs between out-of-hours GP cooperatives and list-holding GPs. The outcome was the difference in the number of doctor’s consultations per 1000 inhabitants between the intervention and control groups during the winter months before and after the intervention. A negative binomial regression model was used for the statistical analyses. The model was adjusted for the number of nurses who had participated in the e-learning course, the population size and patients’ age groups, with the out-of-hours GP cooperatives defined as clusters. Results The regression showed that the intervention did not change the number of consultations for RTIs between the two groups of out-of-hours GP cooperatives (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91–1.07). The winter season’s out-of-hours patient population was younger and had a higher proportion of RTIs than the patient population in the list-holding GP offices. Laryngitis, sore throat, and pneumonia were the most common diagnoses during the out-of-hours primary care service. Conclusions The intervention did not influence the out-of-hours attendance. This finding may be due to the intervention’s limited scope and the intention-to-treat design. Changing a population’s out-of-hours attendance is complicated and needs to be targeted at several organizational levels.

Abstract Background Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Objective To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance—Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. Methods We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. Results The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). Conclusion We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.