Search

Purpose: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care., Methods: PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out., Results: In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies., Conclusion: eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest C.L. and E.K. are cofounders of the Champlain BASE eConsult Service, but they have no commercial interest in the service and do not retain any proprietary rights. As Coexecutive Directors of the Ontario eConsult Centre of Excellence, they receive salary support from the Ontario Ministry of Health. E.K. answers occasional electronic consultations (less than 1 per month) as a specialist through the service for which she is reimbursed. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: More than 50% of Canadian adult patients wait longer than four weeks to see a specialist after referral from primary care. Access to accurate wait time information may help primary care physicians choose the timeliest specialist to address a patient's specific needs. We conducted a mixed-methods study to assess if primary to specialist care wait times can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMR), analyzed the wait time information, and used focus groups and interviews to assess the potential clinical utility of the wait time information., Methods: Two family practices were recruited to examine primary care physician to specialist wait times between January 2016 and December 2017, using EMR data. The primary outcome was the median wait time from physician referral to specialist appointment for each specialty service. Secondary outcomes included the physician and patient characteristics associated with wait times as well as qualitative analyses of physician interviews about the resulting wait time reports., Results: Wait time data can be extracted from the primary care EMR and converted to a report format for family physicians and specialists to review. After data cleaning, there were 7141 referrals included from 4967 unique patients. The 5 most common specialties referred to were Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Ear Nose and Throat, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology. Half of the patients were seen by a specialist within 42 days, 75% seen within 80 days and all patients within 760 days. There were significant differences in wait times by specialty, for younger patients, and those with urgently labelled medical situations. Overall, wait time reports were perceived by clinicians to be important since they could help family physicians decide how to triage referrals and might lead to system improvements., Conclusions: Wait time information from primary to specialist care can aid in decision-making around specialist referrals, identify bottlenecks, and help with system planning. This mixed method study is a starting point to review the importance of providing wait time data for both family physicians, specialists and local health systems. Future work can be directed towards developing wait time reporting functionality and evaluating if wait time information will help increase system efficiency and/or improve provider and patient satisfaction., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Family history (FH) of a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with two to fourfold increased risk, yet screening uptake is suboptimal despite proven mortality reduction. We developed a FH-based CRC Risk Triage/Management tool for family physicians (FPs), and educational booklet for patients with CRC FH. This report describes physician referral and patient screening behavior 5 and 10 years post-educational intervention, and factors associated with screening. Longitudinal cohort study. FPs/patients in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada were sent questionnaires at baseline (2005), 5 and 10 years (2015) following tool/booklet receipt. FPs were asked about CRC screening, patients about FH, screening type and timing. "Correct" screening was concordance with tool recommendations. Results reported for 29/121 (24%) FPs and 98/297 (33%) patients who completed all 3 questionnaires. Over 10 years 2/3 patients received the correct CRC screening test at appropriate timing (baseline 75%, 5-year 62%, 10-year 65%). About half reported their FP recommended CRC screening (5-year 51%, 10-year 63%). Fewer than half the patients correctly assessed their CRC risk (44%, 40%, 41%). Patients were less likely to have correct screening timing if female (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 0.99; p = 0.045). Patients were less likely to have both correct test and timing if moderate/high CRC risk (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.93; p = 0.017) and more likely if their physician recommended screening (RR1.69; 95% CI 1.15, 2.49; p = 0.007). Physician discussion of CRC risk and screening can positively impact patient screening behavior. Efforts are particularly needed for women and patients at moderate/high CRC risk., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with risk of poor adult health, including cardiometabolic diseases. Little is known about the correlates of ACEs for adults who have already developed cardiometabolic diseases, or who are at elevated risk., Methods: Adult primary care patients with cardiometabolic disease (hypertension, diabetes, stroke, angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, angioplasty) or with a risk factor (obesity, smoking, high cholesterol, family history) were surveyed regarding ACEs, psychological distress, attachment insecurity, quality of life, behavior change goals, stages of change, and attitudes toward potential prevention strategies., Results: Of 387 eligible patients, 74% completed the ACEs survey. Exposure to ACEs was reported by 174 participants (61%). Controlling for age, gender, relationship status and income, number of ACEs was associated with psychological distress (F = 3.7, p = .01), quality of life (F = 8.9, p = .001), attachment anxiety (F = 3.4, p = .02), drinking alcohol most days (F = 4.0, p = .008) and smoking (F = 2.7, p = .04). Greater ACE exposure was associated with less likelihood of selecting diet or physical activity as a behavior change goal (linear-by-linear association p = .009). Stage of change was not associated with ACEs. ACEs exposure was not related to preferred resources for behavior change., Conclusions: ACEs are common among patients at cardiometabolic risk and are related to quality of life, psychological factors that influence cardiometabolic outcomes and behavior change goals. ACEs should be taken into account when managing cardiometabolic risk in family medicine.

Objective: To describe the experiences of participants in Canadian family medicine maternity care enhanced skills programs: their current practice situation with respect to maternity care; the reasons they pursued enhanced maternity care training; and their perceptions of competencies attained during the program., Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire., Setting: Canada., Participants: Graduates of family medicine enhanced skills programs in maternity care in Canada between 2004 and 2014., Main Outcome Measures: Participants' current engagement in intrapartum care; reasons for participating in the enhanced skills programs; interest in obstetrics at different points in training; and development of maternity care competencies during both core residency and the enhanced skills program., Results: Eighty-seven graduates (response rate of 44%) participated. At an average of 5 years in practice, 77% of enhanced skills graduates were providing intrapartum care. Sixty-nine percent of respondents took the enhanced skills program because they did not feel ready to practise obstetrics without supervision. More than half (55%) of respondents had intended to include obstetrics in their future practices when they were in medical school. By the end of residency, 99% intended to practise obstetrics; however, this percentage decreased to 87% by the end of fellowship. There was a statistically significant increase in graduates' perceptions of various maternity care competencies (eg, vacuum-assisted birth, perineal repair) following enhanced skills training. Eighty-two percent of respondents indicated that the ability to access enhanced skills training supported their decision to provide obstetrics care., Conclusion: This is the first evaluation of graduates of enhanced skills programs in maternity care in Canada. Enhanced skills programs appear to support the education of family medicine maternity care providers; however, these programs might be compensating for residents' lack of confidence in providing maternity care independently rather than providing truly enhanced skills. This study also confirms that some medical students and family medicine residents change their minds in the direction of wanting to provide full-scope maternity care during the course of their education., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers' perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians' (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required. Methods : A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012. Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs' current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website. Conclusion : FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists., (Copyright © 2019 Carroll, Allanson, Morrison, Miller, Wilson, Permaul and Telner.)

Purpose: Many chlamydia infections are identified through screening, which is frequently offered to females concomitantly with cervical cancer screening. Recent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening less frequently and starting later. We sought to evaluate the impact of the May 2012 Ontario, Canada, cervical cancer screening guideline change on Papanicolaou (Pap) and chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) testing and incidence., Methods: We extracted population-based physician billing claims data to identify Pap and chlamydia tests and public health surveillance data to identify chlamydia cases. We used interrupted time series analysis of quarterly data spanning 2 years before and after the guideline change and fitted segmented linear regression or rational functions to the outcomes using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Outcomes were stratified by sex and age group., Results: Two years after the guideline change, we observed reduced chlamydia testing in females, with the greatest relative reduction (25.5%) among those aged 15 to 19 years. We also observed decreases in reported chlamydia incidence for females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years (relative reductions of 16.8% and 14.4%, respectively). Chlamydia incidence remained the same for males, despite increased chlamydia testing., Conclusions: Recent cervical cancer screening guideline changes in Ontario were associated with reduced chlamydia testing and reported new cases of chlamydia in females. Females aged 15 to 19 years, who are at high risk for chlamydia if sexually active, and who no longer warrant cervical cancer screening, were disproportionately affected. Females should be tested for chlamydia based on risk, regardless of need for Pap testing., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing., Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing., Results: The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy., Conclusions: Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed., Competing Interests: We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

Objective: To assess the proportion of primary care patients who report a family history (FH) of type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC); assess concordance of FH information derived from the electronic medical record (EMR) compared with patient-completed health questionnaires; and assess whether appropriate screening was informed by risk based solely on FH., Design: Data from the BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) trial were used. Patients were mailed questionnaires. Baseline FH and screening data were obtained for enrolled patients from the EMR and health questionnaires., Setting: Ontario and Alberta., Participants: Randomly selected patients from 8 family practices., Main Outcome Measures: Agreement on FH between the EMR and questionnaire was determined; logistic regression was used to assess significant predictors of screening., Results: In total, 775 of 789 (98%) patients completed the health questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 52.5 years and 72% were female. A minimum of 12% of patients (range 12% to 36%) had a reported FH of 1 of 4 chronic diseases. Among patients with positive FH, the following proportions of patients had that FH recorded in the EMR compared with the questionnaire: diabetes, 24% in the EMR versus 36% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.466; coronary artery disease, 35% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.225; breast cancer, 21% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.241; and CRC, 12% in the EMR versus 14% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.510. There was moderate agreement for diabetes and CRC. The presence of FH was a significant predictor of CRC screening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.1)., Conclusion: A moderate prevalence of FH was found for 4 conditions for which screening recommendations vary with risk based on FH. Having patients self-complete an FH was thought to be feasible; however, questions about FH accuracy and completeness from both self-report and EMR remain. Work is needed to determine how to facilitate the adoption of FH tools into practice as well as strategies linking familial risk to appropriate screening.Trial registration number ISRCTN07170460 (ISRCTN Registry)., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Evidence indicates that many barriers exist to the integration of genetic case finding into primary care. We conducted an exploratory study of the determinants of three specific behaviours related to using breast cancer genetics referral guidelines effectively: 'taking a family history', 'making a risk assessment', and 'making a referral decision'. We developed vignettes of primary care consultations with hypothetical patients, representing a wide range of genetic risk for which different referral decisions would be appropriate. We used the Theory of Planned Behavior to develop a survey instrument to capture data on behavioural intention and its predictors (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control) for each of the three behaviours and mailed it to a sample of Canadian family physicians. We used correlation and regression analyses to explore the relationships between predictor and dependent variables. The response rate was 96/125 (77%). The predictor variables explained 38-83% of the variance in intention across the three behaviours. Family physicians' intentions were lower for 'making a risk assessment' (perceived as the most difficult) than for the other two behaviours. We illustrate how understanding psychological factors salient to behaviour can be used to tailor professional educational interventions; for example, considering the approach of behavioural rehearsal to improve confidence in skills (perceived behavioural control), or vicarious reinforcement as where participants are sceptical that genetics is consistent with their role (subjective norm).

Objective: To assess primary care providers' (PCPs') experiences with, perceptions of, and desired role in personalized medicine, with a focus on cancer., Design: Qualitative study involving focus groups., Setting: Urban and rural interprofessional primary care team practices in Alberta and Ontario., Participants: Fifty-one PCPs., Methods: Semistructured focus groups were conducted and audiorecorded. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using techniques informed by grounded theory including coding, interpretations of patterns in the data, and constant comparison., Main Findings: Five focus groups with the 51 participants were conducted; 2 took place in Alberta and 3 in Ontario. Primary care providers described limited experience with personalized medicine, citing breast cancer and prenatal care as main areas of involvement. They expressed concern over their lack of knowledge, in some circumstances relying on personal experiences to inform their attitudes and practice. Participants anticipated an inevitable role in personalized medicine primarily because patients seek and trust their advice; however, there was underlying concern about the magnitude of information and pace of discovery in this area, particularly in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Increased knowledge, closer ties to genetics specialists, and relevant, reliable personalized medicine resources accessible at the point of care were reported as important for successful implementation of personalized medicine., Conclusion: Primary care providers are prepared to discuss personalized medicine, but they require better resources. Models of care that support a more meaningful relationship between PCPs and genetics specialists should be pursued. Continuing education strategies need to address knowledge gaps including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, a relatively new area provoking PCP concern. Primary care providers should be mindful of using personal experiences to guide care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: Eliciting known risk factors for postpartum depression (PPD) during pregnancy may enable primary health care providers to identify women at increased risk of becoming depressed. The purpose of this study was to examine how well the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment (ALPHA) form identified antenatal risk factors for PPD, compared with routine care, in a sample of pregnant women., Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the ALPHA form in detecting antenatal risk factors associated with the adverse postpartum outcomes of postpartum depression, intimate partner violence, child abuse, and couple dysfunction. The participants were primary antenatal care providers--family physicians, obstetricians, and midwives--from four diverse communities in Ontario. These providers were matched and then randomly allocated into the intervention group, who used the ALPHA form, or into the control group, who administered usual care. In total, 227 pregnant women were recruited: 98 in the ALPHA group and 129 in the control group. The data presented in this paper are from a secondary analysis focusing on PPD as the outcome., Results: Providers randomized to the ALPHA group identified a statistically significantly higher proportion of women with antenatal psychosocial risk factors for PPD (36% vs. 26%) and a significantly higher number of risk factors per woman compared with the control group (mean 2.1 vs.1.8) (z = -1.96, P = 0.05). Providers in the ALPHA group also identified significantly more women having a "previous history of depression" (16% vs. 6%) (chi2 = 5.243, df = 1, P = 0.03) and "[having] witnessed or experienced abuse as a child" (17% vs. 3%) (chi2 = 12.488, df = 1, P = 0.0005), which are both established risk factors for PPD., Conclusion: The ALPHA provides a systematic means of eliciting antenatal psychosocial risk factors for PPD for primary care providers, and it may be particularly useful for raising and discussing sensitive issues. The detection of depressive symptomatology during pregnancy remains problematic, however, and detection may be improved by administering a simple standardized measure of depressive symptomatology during routine antenatal care.

Background: A pregnant woman's psychological health is a significant predictor of postpartum outcomes. The Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment (ALPHA) form incorporates 15 risk factors associated with poor postpartum outcomes of woman abuse, child abuse, postpartum depression and couple dysfunction. We sought to determine whether health care providers using the ALPHA form detected more antenatal psychosocial concerns among pregnant women than providers practising usual prenatal care., Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 communities in Ontario. Family physicians, obstetricians and midwives who see at least 10 prenatal patients a year enrolled 5 eligible women each. Providers in the intervention group attended an educational workshop on using the ALPHA form and completed the form with enrolled women. The control group provided usual care. After the women delivered, both groups of providers identified concerns related to the 15 risk factors on the ALPHA form for each patient and rated the level of concern. The primary outcome was the number of psychosocial concerns identified. Results were controlled for clustering., Results: There were 21 (44%) providers randomly assigned to the ALPHA group and 27 (56%) to the control group. A total of 227 patients participated: 98 (43%) in the ALPHA group and 129 (57%) in the control group. ALPHA group providers were more likely than control group providers to identify psychosocial concerns (odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.0; p = 0.02) and to rate the level of concern as "high" (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.1-20.2; p = 0.03). ALPHA group providers were also more likely to detect concerns related to family violence (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.9-12.3; p = 0.001)., Interpretation: Using the ALPHA form helped health care providers detect more psychosocial risk factors for poor postpartum outcomes, especially those related to family violence. It is a useful prenatal tool, identifying women who would benefit from additional support and interventions.

Objective: To compare the following 4 screening strategies for detecting asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) in pregnancy: urine testing with leukocyte-esterase-nitrite (LEN) strips at each prenatal visit followed by a urine culture if positive; a single urine culture at fewer than 20 weeks' gestation; 2 urine cultures, at fewer than 20 weeks' gestation and at 28 weeks' gestation; or 3 urine cultures, at fewer than 20 weeks', at 28 weeks', and at 36 weeks' gestation., Methods: Participants were pregnant women presenting to 2 obstetricians and 6 family physicians at outpatient family medicine and obstetrical clinics in a large Canadian urban teaching hospital. LEN dipstick urine testing was conducted at each prenatal visit. A midstream urine culture was obtained from all women before 20 weeks' gestation and at 28 weeks' and 36 weeks' gestation, as well as for positive LEN tests. Any positive urine culture in an asymptomatic woman was designated a case of ABU. The total number of ABU cases that would be detected by each of the 4 strategies (LEN dipstick testing only, a single urine culture, 2 cultures, and 3 cultures) was determined and compared., Results: There were 49 cases of ABU among 1050 women (4.7%). LEN testing at each prenatal visit identified 7 cases (14.3%), compared with 20 cases (40.8%) with 1 urine culture, 31 (63.3%) with 2 urine cultures, and 43 (87.8%) with 3 urine cultures., Conclusion: A single urine culture before 20 weeks' gestation missed more than one-half the ABU cases. A culture in each trimester identified most ABU cases.

Objectives: Infections with group A streptococcus (GAS) occur in 10% to 20% of patients with sore throats, whereas antibiotics are prescribed 50% of the time. Clinical scoring rules can more accurately predict the likelihood of GAS infection, but whether family physicians will adopt such approaches is unclear. This study sought to determine whether repeated clinical prompts to use a scoring approach could help family physicians lower antibiotic use in patients with a sore throat., Study Design: Randomized trial in which physicians were assigned to use either (1) chart stickers that prompted them to calculate a score based on clinical findings and provided management recommendations linked to score totals or (2) a clinical checklist., Population: Ninety-seven family physicians in Ontario, Canada, assessed 621 children and adults with sore throat and obtained a throat swab for culture., Outcomes Measured: (1) Unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions given to patients with a negative throat culture and (2) overall antibiotic use., Results: There were no differences between the control and intervention group in unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions (16.1% vs 20.4%, respectively, P =.29) or overall antibiotic use (27.9% vs 28.1%, P =.97). However, a number of physicians dropped out of the study; as a result, the characteristics of the physicians in the 2 groups were dissimilar in factors related to prescribing. After adjusting for these differences and patient clustering by physician, the odds ratio for the effect of the intervention on unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42, 1.40) and 0.57 for overall antibiotic use (95% CI = 0.27, 1.17)., Conclusions: Chart prompts during clinical encounters to use a clinical score in the assessment of patients with a sore throat did not reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing by family physicians. The problems encountered in conducting this community-based intervention trial are discussed in relation to the negative result.