Search

Background: Guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reassessment intervals are unclear, potentially leading to detrimental practice variation: too frequent can result in overtreatment and greater strain on the healthcare system; too infrequent could result in the neglect of high risk patients who require medication. This study aimed to understand the different factors that general practitioners (GPs) consider when deciding on the reassessment interval for patients previously assessed for primary CVD risk. Methods: This paper combines quantitative and qualitative data regarding reassessment intervals from two separate studies of CVD risk management. Experimental study: 144 Australian GPs viewed a random selection of hypothetical cases via a paper-based questionnaire, in which blood pressure, cholesterol and 5-year absolute risk (AR) were systematically varied to appear lower or higher. GPs were asked how they would manage each case, including an open-ended response for when they would reassess the patient. Interview study: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 Australian GPs, recruited separately from the GPs in the experimental study. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method. Results: Experiment: GPs stated that they would reassess the majority of patients across all absolute risk categories in 6 months or less (low AR = 52 % [CI95% =47-57 %], moderate AR = 82 % [CI95% = 76-86 %], high AR = 87 % [CI95% = 82-90 %], total = 71 % [CI95% = 67-75 %]), with 48 % (CI95% = 43-53 %) of patients reassessed in under 3 months. The majority (75 % [CI95% = 70-79 %]) of patients with low-moderate AR (≤15 %) and an elevated risk factor would be reassessed in under 6 months. Interviews: GPs identified different functions for reassessment and risk factor monitoring, which affected recommended intervals. These included perceived psychosocial benefits to patients, preparing the patient for medication, and identifying barriers to lifestyle change and medication adherence. Reassessment and monitoring intervals were driven by patient motivation to change lifestyle, patient demand, individual risk factors, and GP attitudes. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in reassessment intervals for patients with the same risk profile. This suggests that GPs are not following reassessment recommendations in the Australian guidelines. The use of shorter intervals for low-moderate AR contradicts research on optimal monitoring intervals, and may result in unnecessary costs and over-treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delayed antibiotic prescribing reduces antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in trials in general practice, but the uptake in clinical practice is low. The aim of the study was to identify facilitators and barriers to general practitioners' (GPs') use of delayed prescribing and to gain pharmacists' and the public's views about delayed prescribing in Australia. Methods: This study used the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel to explore facilitators and barriers to delayed prescribing in Australia. Forty-three semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with general practitioners, pharmacists and patients were conducted. Responses were coded into domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, and specific criteria from the Behaviour Change Wheel were used to identify which domains were relevant to increasing the use of delayed prescribing by GPs. Results: The interviews revealed nine key domains that influence GPs' use of delayed prescribing: knowledge; cognitive and interpersonal skills; memory, attention and decision-making processes; optimism; beliefs about consequences; intentions; goals; emotion; and social influences: GPs knew about delayed prescribing; however, they did not use it consistently, preferring to bring patients back for review and only using it with patients in a highly selective way. Pharmacists would support GPs and the public in delayed prescribing but would fill the prescription if people insisted. The public said they would delay taking their antibiotics if asked by their GP and given the right information on managing symptoms and when to take antibiotics. Conclusions: Using a theory-driven approach, we identified nine key domains that influence GPs' willingness to provide a delayed prescription to patients with an acute respiratory infection presenting to general practice. These data can be used to develop a structured intervention to change this behaviour and thus reduce antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]