Search

Background: Financial incentives and audit/feedback are widely used in primary care to influence clinician behaviour and increase quality of care. While observational data suggest a decline in quality when these interventions are stopped, their removal has not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), to our knowledge. This trial aimed to determine whether chlamydia testing in general practice is sustained when financial incentives and/or audit/feedback are removed., Methods and Findings: We undertook a 2 × 2 factorial cluster RCT in 60 general practices in 4 Australian states targeting 49,525 patients aged 16-29 years for annual chlamydia testing. Clinics were recruited between July 2014 and September 2015 and were followed for up to 2 years or until 31 December 2016. Clinics were eligible if they were in the intervention group of a previous cluster RCT where general practitioners (GPs) received financial incentives (AU$5-AU$8) for each chlamydia test and quarterly audit/feedback reports of their chlamydia testing rates. Clinics were randomised into 1 of 4 groups: incentives removed but audit/feedback retained (group A), audit/feedback removed but incentives retained (group B), both removed (group C), or both retained (group D). The primary outcome was the annual chlamydia testing rate among 16- to 29-year-old patients, where the numerator was the number who had at least 1 chlamydia test within 12 months and the denominator was the number who had at least 1 consultation during the same 12 months. We undertook a factorial analysis in which we investigated the effects of removal versus retention of incentives (groups A + C versus groups B + D) and the effects of removal versus retention of audit/feedback (group B + C versus groups A + D) separately. Of 60 clinics, 59 were randomised and 55 (91.7%) provided data (group A: 15 clinics, 11,196 patients; group B: 14, 11,944; group C: 13, 11,566; group D: 13, 14,819). Annual testing decreased from 20.2% to 11.7% (difference -8.8%; 95% CI -10.5% to -7.0%) in clinics with incentives removed and decreased from 20.6% to 14.3% (difference -7.1%; 95% CI -9.6% to -4.7%) where incentives were retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -0.9% (95% CI -3.5% to 1.7%; p = 0.2267). Annual testing decreased from 21.0% to 11.6% (difference -9.5%; 95% CI -11.7% to -7.4%) in clinics where audit/feedback was removed and decreased from 19.9% to 14.5% (difference -6.4%; 95% CI -8.6% to -4.2%) where audit/feedback was retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -2.6% (95% CI -5.4% to -0.1%; p = 0.0336). Study limitations included an unexpected reduction in testing across all groups impacting statistical power, loss of 4 clinics after randomisation, and inclusion of rural clinics only., Conclusions: Audit/feedback is more effective than financial incentives of AU$5-AU$8 per chlamydia test at sustaining GP chlamydia testing practices over time in Australian general practice., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000595617., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. I have read the journal’s policy and the authors have the following competing interests: ML has received research grants to his institution from Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag and ViiV Healthcare; NL is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.

Background: Total pancreatectomy (TP) is an operation that has long been associated with high morbidity and mortality, and rarely advocated for treatment of pancreatic tumours. Because of the improvements in diabetes management, there has been renewed interest in TP for treatment of pancreatic neoplasm, with a need to reassess outcomes., Methods: Fifteen patients (9%) underwent TP in a single Australian high-volume tertiary institution between August 2005 and January 2012. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was performed in 150 patients during the same time period. Indications and peri-operative outcomes of patients were compared., Results: TP was performed for treatment of malignancy in 13 (87%) cases, for tumours involving the pancreatic neck. Complete tumour clearance achieved. Portal vein resections were more frequently required than in the PD group (5 (33%) versus 9 (6%); P = 0.004), as were blood transfusions (11 (73%) versus 28 (19%); P < 0.001), and median operative times were longer (10.5 versus 7.0 h; P < 0.001). Overall, complications were significantly greater in the TP group compared with the PD group (13 (87%) versus 86 (57%); P = 0.029), but the difference was mainly as a result of high grade I complications, in particular symptomatic hypoglycaemia (4 (27%) versus 0 (0%): P < 0.001) that could be easily managed. The overall lengths of stay and readmission rates were similar between groups., Conclusion: TP should be considered in selective cases for treatment of pancreatic neoplasm if it allows complete clearance. The procedure does not appear to be associated with significant increases in serious complications compared with PD., (© 2014 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)