Explore the vast range of titles available.

Antibiotic resistance is a leading global public health concern and antibiotic use is a key driver. Effective interventions are needed to target key stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs). In Malta, little is known about factors that influence GPs' antibiotic prescribing, making it challenging to implement targeted interventions. We therefore aimed to explore GPs' understanding of antibiotic use and resistance, and describe their perceived barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Malta. Face-to-face individual semi-structured interviews were held with a quota sample of 20 GPs in 2014. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and later analysed iteratively using manifest and latent content analysis. Findings were collated in a socioecological model to depict how GPs as individuals are embedded within larger social systems and contexts, and how each component within this system impacts their prescribing behaviour. We found that GPs' antibiotic prescribing decisions are complex and impacted by numerous barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, organisational, community, and public policy level. Predominant factors found to impact GPs' antibiotic prescribing included not only intrinsic GP factors such as knowledge, awareness, experience, and misconceptions, but also several external factors. At the interpersonal level, GPs' perceived patient demand and behaviour to be a persistent issue that impacts their prescribing decisions. Similarly, some GPs found pressure from drug reps to be concerning despite being considered an important source of information. Organisational and public policy-level issues such as lack of access to relevant antibiotic prescribing guidelines and current antibiotic resistance data from the community, were also considered major barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Utilisation of diagnostic testing was found to be low and GPs' perceptions on the introduction of rapid point-of-care tests to support antibiotic prescription decisions, were mixed. This study revealed the complexity of the antibiotic prescribing decision and the numerous barriers and facilitators that impact it, visualised through a socioecological model. Addressing GPs' antibiotic prescribing practices will require targeted and coordinated implementation activities at all levels to change behaviour and address misconceptions, whilst also improving the physical and social environment. NCT03218930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.

Antibiotic use is a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Although delayed antibiotic prescription is a recommended strategy to reduce antibiotic use, practices vary; it appears less commonly used in southern European countries where antibiotic consumption is highest. Despite these variations, few qualitative studies have explored general practitioners' perceptions of delayed antibiotic prescription. We therefore aimed to explore and describe the perceptions of delayed antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections among general practitioners in Malta. This qualitative phenomenographic study was conducted in Malta. A semi-structured interview guide was developed in English, pilot tested and revised accordingly. Interview topics included views on antibiotic resistance, antibiotic use and delayed antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections, and barriers and facilitators to antibiotic prescription. Individual, face-to-face interviews were held in 2014 with a quota sample of 20 general practitioners and transcribed verbatim. Data were subsequently analysed using a phenomenographic approach. General practitioners perceived delayed antibiotic prescription in five qualitatively different ways: (A) \"The Service Provider\"-maintaining a good general practitioner-patient relationship to retain patients and avoid doctor-shopping, (B) \"The Uncertainty Avoider\"-reaching a compromise and providing treatment just in case, (C) \"The Comforter\"-providing the patient comfort and reassurance, (D) \"The Conscientious Practitioner\"-empowering and educating patients, and limiting antibiotic use, and (E) \"The Holder of Professional Power\"-retaining general practitioner responsibility by employing a wait-and-see approach. Although general practitioners were largely positive towards delayed antibiotic prescription, not all supported the strategy; some preferred a wait-and-see approach with follow-up. Many delayed antibiotic prescription users selectively practiced delayed prescription with patients they trusted or who they believed had a certain level of knowledge and understanding. They also preferred a patient-led approach with a one to three day delay; post-dating delayed antibiotic prescriptions was uncommon. In this study we have shown that general practitioners hold varying perceptions about delayed antibiotic prescription and that there is variation in the way delayed antibiotic prescription is employed in Malta. Whilst delayed antibiotic prescription is utilised in Malta, not all general practitioners support the strategy, and motivations and practices differ. In high consumption settings, formal and standardised implementation of delayed antibiotic prescription could help curb antibiotic overuse. Diagnosis-specific delayed antibiotic prescription recommendations should also be incorporated into guidelines. Finally, further investigation into patients' and pharmacists' views on delayed antibiotic prescription is required. NCT03218930.

Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

Both clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve care access, even in physical examination–dependent specialties such as dermatology. However, little is known about whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, which is a common care coordination gap. Using mixed methods, this study sought to retrospectively evaluate how teledermatology affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care. Patient-level encounter scheduling data were used to compare the number and proportion of patients who were scheduled and received in-clinic or video dermatology follow-ups within 14 and 90 days after discharge across 3 phases: June to September 2019 (before teledermatology), June to September 2020 (early teledermatology), and February to May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). The time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient follow-up visits for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions of teledermatology for postdischarge patients. More patients completed follow-up within 90 days after discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). Thus, the clinic’s capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient increased from baseline by 36% in the early (101 from 74) and sustained (100 from 74) teledermatology periods. During early teledermatology use, 61.4% (62/101) of the follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (47/100) in the following year, when COVID-19–related restrictions started to lift (P=.04), indicating more targeted but still substantial use. The proportion of patients who were followed up within the recommended 14 days after discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (33/62, 53% vs 15/39, 38%; P=.15) or sustained (26/53, 60% vs 28/47, 49%; P=.29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology would continue to be offered. Most considered postdischarge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology as they had undergone a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits because of competing health priorities. Some reported patients needing technological support. Ultimately, most agreed that the choice of follow-up care modality should be the patient’s own. Teledermatology could be an important tool for maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during the pandemic, although the timeliness of care transitions did not improve. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined through communication with patients to incorporate their and their caregivers’ preferences.

ObjectiveTo identify factors that influence general practitioners’ (GPs’) oral antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract complaints (aRTCs) in Malta.DesignRepeated, cross-sectional surveillance.SettingMaltese general practice; both public health centres and private GP clinics.Participants30 GPs registered on the Malta Medical Council’s Specialist Register and 3 GP trainees registered data of 4831 patients of all ages suffering from any aRTC. Data were collected monthly between May 2015 and April 2016 during predetermined 1-week periods.Outcome measuresThe outcome of interest was antibiotic prescription (yes/no), defined as an oral antibiotic prescription issued for an aRTC during an in-person consultation, irrespective of the number of antibiotics given. The association between GP, practice and consultation-level factors, patient sociodemographic factors and patient health status factors, and antibiotic prescription was investigated.ResultsThe antibiotic prescription rate was 45.0%. Independent factors positively associated with antibiotic prescribing included female GP sex (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.26), GP age with GPs ≥60 being the most likely (OR 34.7, 95% CI 14.14 to 84.98), patient age with patients ≥65 being the most likely (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.18), number of signs and/or symptoms with patients having ≥4 being the most likely (OR 9.6, 95% CI 5.78 to 15.99), fever (OR 2.6, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.26), productive cough (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), otalgia (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76), tender cervical nodes (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.05), regular clients (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66), antibiotic requests (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.52 to 8.99) and smoking (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.71). Conversely, patients with non-productive cough (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.41), sore throat (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78), rhinorrhoea (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.36) or dyspnoea (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83) were less likely to receive an antibiotic prescription.ConclusionAntibiotic prescribing for aRTCs was high and influenced by a number of factors. Potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care can be addressed through multifaceted interventions addressing modifiable factors associated with prescription.Trial registration numberNCT03218930

Background: Antibiotic 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.

Introduction: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care for acute respiratory tract complaints (aRTCs), often inappropriately. Social marketing interventions could improve prescribing in such settings. We evaluate the impact of a social marketing intervention on general practitioners’ (GPs’) antibiotic prescribing for aRTCs in Malta. Methods: Changes in GPs’ antibiotic prescribing were monitored over two surveillance periods between 2015 and 2018. Primary outcome: change in antibiotic prescription for aRTCs. Secondary outcomes: change in antibiotic prescription: (i) for immediate use, (ii) for delayed antibiotic prescription, (iii) by diagnosis, and (iv) by antibiotic class. Data were analysed using clustered analysis and interrupted time series analysis (ITSA). Results: Of 33 participating GPs, 18 successfully completed the study. Although clustered analyses showed a significant 3% decrease in overall antibiotic prescription (p = 0.024), ITSA showed no significant change overall (p = 0.264). Antibiotic prescription decreased significantly for the common cold (p < 0.001), otitis media (p = 0.044), and sinusitis (p = 0.004), but increased for pharyngitis (p = 0.015). Conclusions: The intervention resulted in modest improvements in GPs’ antibiotic prescribing. A more top-down approach will likely be required for future initiatives to be successful in this setting, focusing on diagnostic and prescribing support like rapid diagnostic testing, prescribing guidelines, and standardised delayed antibiotic prescriptions.

Background:In-hospital dermatological care has shifted from dedicated dermatology wards to consultation services, and some consulted patients may require postdischarge follow-up in outpatient dermatology. Safe and timely care transitions from inpatient-to-outpatient specialty care are critical for patient health, but communication around these transitions can be disjointed, and workflows can be complex.Objective:In this 3-phase quality improvement effort, we developed and evaluated an intervention that leveraged an electronic health record (EHR) feature, known as SmartPhrase, to enable a new workflow to improve transitions from inpatient care to outpatient dermatology.Methods:Phase 1 (February-March 2021) included interviews with patients and process mapping with key stakeholders to identify gaps and inform an intervention: a SmartPhrase table and associated workflow to promote collection of patient information needed for scheduling follow-up and closed-loop communication between dermatology and scheduling teams. In phase 2 (April-May 2021), semistructured interviews—with dermatologists (n=5), dermatology residents (n=5), and schedulers (n=6)—identified pain points and refinements. In phase 3, the intervention was evaluated by triangulating data from these interviews with measured changes in scheduling efficiency, visit completion, and messaging volume preimplementation (January-February 2021) and postimplementation (April-May 2021).Results:Preintervention pain points included unclear workflow for care transitions, limited patient input in follow-up planning, multiple messaging channels (eg, EHR based, email, and phone messages), and time-inefficient patient tracking. The intervention addressed most pain points; interviewees reported the intervention was easy to adopt and improved scheduling efficiency, workload, and patient involvement. More visits were completed within the desired timeframe of 14 days after discharge during the postimplementation period (21/47, 45%) than the preimplementation period (28/41, 68%; P=.03). The messaging workload also decreased from 88 scheduling-related messages sent for 25 patients before implementation to 30 messages for 8 patients after implementation.Conclusions:Inpatient-to-outpatient specialty care transitions are complex and involve multiple stakeholders, thus requiring multifaceted solutions. With deliberate evaluation, broad stakeholder input, and iteration, we designed and implemented a successful solution using a standard EHR feature, SmartPhrase, integrated into a standardized workflow to improve the timeliness of posthospital specialty care and reduce workload.

Introduction Tracking adaptations during implementation can help assess and interpret outcomes. The framework for reporting adaptations and modifications‐expanded (FRAME) provides a structured approach to characterize adaptations. We applied the FRAME across multiple health services projects, and developed an analytic approach to assess the impact of adaptations. Methods Mixed methods analysis of research diaries from seven quality improvement (QI) and research projects during the early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using the FRAME as a codebook, discrete adaptations were described and categorized. We then conducted a three‐step analysis plan: (1) calculated the frequency of adaptations by FRAME categories across projects; (2) qualitatively assessed the impact of adaptations on project goals; and (3) qualitatively assessed relationships between adaptations within projects to thematically consolidate adaptations to generate more explanatory value on how adaptations influenced intervention progress and outcomes. Results Between March and July 2020, 42 adaptations were identified across seven health services projects. The majority of adaptations related to training or evaluation (52.4%) with the goal of maintaining the feasibility (66.7%) of executing projects during the pandemic. Five FRAME constructs offered the most explanatory benefit to assess the impact of adaptations on program and evaluation goals, providing the basis for creating an analytic approach dubbed the “A‐FRAME,” analysis of FRAME data. Using the A‐FRAME, the 42 adaptations were consolidated into 17 succinct adaptations. Two QI projects discontinued altogether. Intervention adaptations related to staffing, training, or delivery, while evaluation adaptations included design, recruitment, and data collection adjustments. Conclusions By sifting qualitative data about adaptations into the A‐FRAME, implementers and researchers can succinctly describe how adaptations affect interventions and their evaluations. The simple and concise presentation of information using the A‐FRAME matrix can help implementers and evaluators account for the influence of adaptations on program outcomes.

Introduction Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician‐led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in‐house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician‐led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences. Aim To describe the ICDP‐ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021. Methods Department‐level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high‐level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in‐depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals. Results Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID‐19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system‐wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi‐year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access. Conclusion Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise‐wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross‐cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.