Search

We examined the impact of COVID-19 on Black barbershops and their potential role as public health extenders. A 30-item survey was distributed to predominantly Black barbershop owners and barbers across 40 different states/territories in the US between June and October 2020. The survey addressed the impact of COVID-19 on Black barbershops, and barbers' interest in engaging in health outreach programs. The majority reported that stay-at-home orders had significant to severe impact on their business; few were prepared for the financial impact and less than half thought they qualified for government assistance. The majority were already providing health education and outreach to the Black community and showed interest in continuing to provide such services, like information on COVID-19. Barbers in Black-serving barbershops, a well-documented effective place for public health outreach to the Black community, show promise as public health extenders in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

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.To describe the ICDP-ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021.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.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.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.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly moved telemedicine from discretionary to necessary. Here, we describe how the Stanford Neurology Department (1) rapidly adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in over 1,000 video visits within 4 weeks, and (2) accelerated an existing quality improvement plan of a tiered roll out of video visits for ambulatory neurology to a full-scale roll out. Key issues we encountered and addressed were related to equipment/software, provider engagement, workflow/triage, and training. On reflection, the key drivers of our success were provider engagement and dedicated support from a physician champion, who plays a critical role understanding stakeholder needs. Before COVID-19, physician interest in telemedicine was mixed. However, in response to county and state stay-at-home orders related to COVID-19, physician engagement changed completely; all providers wanted to convert a majority of visits to video visits as quickly as possible. Rapid deployment of neurology video visits across all its subspecialties is feasible. Our experience and lessons learned can facilitate broader utilization, acceptance, and normalization of video visits for neurology patients in the present as well as the much anticipated postpandemic era.

BACKGROUND Both clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve access to care, even in physical exam dependent specialties like dermatology. However, little is known whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, a common care coordination gap. OBJECTIVE Using mixed methods, we sought to evaluate how teledermatology use affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care. METHODS 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-up within 90 and 14 days post-discharge across three phases: (1) June-September 2019 (pre-teledermatology), (2) June-September 2020 (early teledermatology), (3) February-May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). Time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient’s follow-up visit for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions on teledermatology for post-discharge patients. RESULTS The clinic’s capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient care increased by 36% when teledermatology services were introduced; more patients completed follow-up within 90 days post-discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). During early teledermatology use, 61% (n=62) of follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (n=47) 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 followed up within the recommended 14 days post-discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (53% vs. 38%; P = .15) or sustained (51% vs. 49%; P = .29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology will continue to be offered. Most considered post-discharge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology since they had had a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits due to 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. CONCLUSIONS Teledermatology could be an important tool in maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during a pandemic, although timeliness of care transitions were not improved. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined in communication with patients to incorporate their and their family/caregivers’ preferences.

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.

Background 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. Objective 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the adoption and perceived utility of video visits for new and return patient encounters in ambulatory neurology subspecialties.MethodsVideo visits were launched in an academic, multi-subspecialty, ambulatory neurology clinic in March 2020. Adoption of video visits for new and return patient visits was assessed using clinician-level scheduling data from March 22 to May 16, 2020. Perceived utility of video visits was explored via a clinician survey and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients/caregivers. Findings were compared across 5 subspecialties and 2 visit types (new vs return).ResultsVideo visits were adopted rapidly; all clinicians (n = 65) integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 weeks and 92% of visits were conducted via video although this varied by subspeciality. Utility of video visits was higher for return than new patient visits, as indicated by surveyed (n = 48) and interviewed clinicians (n = 30), aligning with adoption patterns. Compared to in-person visits, clinicians believed it was easier to achieve a similar physical exam, patient-clinician rapport, and perceived quality of care over video for return rather than new patient visits. Of the 25 patients/caregivers interviewed, most were satisfied with the care provided via video, regardless of visit type, with the main limitation being the physical exam.ConclusionsTeleneurology was robustly adopted for both new and return ambulatory neurology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Return patient visits were preferred over new patient visits, but both were feasible. These results provide a foundation for developing targeted guidelines for sustaining teleneurology in ambulatory care.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 provided the impetus for unprecedented adoption of telemedicine. This study aimed to understand video visit adoption by plastic surgery providers; and patient and surgeon perceptions about its efficacy, value, accessibility, and long-term viability. A secondary aim was to develop the proposed ‘Triage Tool for Video Visits in Plastic Surgery’ to help determine visit video eligibility. Methods This mixed-methods evaluation assessed provider-level scheduling data from the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Stanford Health Care to quantify telemedicine adoption and semi-structured phone interviews with patients (n = 20) and surgeons (n = 10) to explore stakeholder perspectives on video visits. Results During the 13-week period after the local stay-at-home orders due to coronavirus disease 2019, 21.4% of preoperative visits and 45.5% of postoperative visits were performed via video. Video visits were considered acceptable by patients and surgeons in plastic surgery in terms of quality of care but were limited by the inability to perform a physical examination. Interviewed clinicians reported that long-term viability needs to be centered around technology (eg, connection, video quality, etc) and physical examinations. Our findings informed a proposed triage tool to determine the appropriateness of video visits for individual patients that incorporates visit type, anesthesia, case, surgeon’s role, and patient characteristics. Conclusion Video technology has the potential to facilitate and improve preoperative and postoperative patient care in plastic surgery but the following components are needed: patient education on taking high-quality photos; standardized clinical guidelines for conducting video visits; and an algorithm-assisted triage tool to support scheduling.

BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVE 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Conclusion 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. Trial registration number NCT03218930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.

To reduce pathogen exposure, conserve personal protective equipment, and facilitate health care personnel work participation in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, three affiliated institutions rapidly and independently deployed inpatient telemedicine programs during March 2020. We describe key features and early learnings of these programs in the hospital setting.Relevant clinical and operational leadership from an academic medical center, pediatric teaching hospital, and safety net county health system met to share learnings shortly after deploying inpatient telemedicine. A summative analysis of their learnings was re-circulated for approval.All three institutions faced pressure to urgently standup new telemedicine systems while still maintaining secure information exchange. Differences across patient demographics and technological capabilities led to variation in solution design, though key technical considerations were similar. Rapid deployment in each system relied on readily available consumer-grade technology, given the existing familiarity to patients and clinicians and minimal infrastructure investment. Preliminary data from the academic medical center over one month suggested positive adoption with 631 inpatient video calls lasting an average (standard deviation) of 16.5 minutes (19.6) based on inclusion criteria.The threat of an imminent surge of COVID-19 patients drove three institutions to rapidly develop inpatient telemedicine solutions. Concurrently, federal and state regulators temporarily relaxed restrictions that would have previously limited these efforts. Strategic direction from executive leadership, leveraging off-the-shelf hardware, vendor engagement, and clinical workflow integration facilitated rapid deployment.The rapid deployment of inpatient telemedicine is feasible across diverse settings as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To identify factors that influence general practitioners’ (GPs’) oral antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract complaints (aRTCs) in Malta. Design: Repeated, cross-sectional surveillance. Setting: Maltese general practice; both public health centres and private GP clinics. Participants: 30 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 measures: The 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: Antibiotic 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., peer-reviewed

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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., Conclusions: 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., peer-reviewed

Objectives: To determine the 1 year antibiotic prescribing patterns by GPs for acute respiratory tract complaints (aRTCs) in Malta. Methods: In this repeated cross-sectional surveillance study, GPs collected data for patients seen for aRTCs during a designated 1 week period each month, between May 2015 and April 2016. GPs received three text reminders during surveillance weeks and were contacted by phone at most four times during the year. GPs also received 3 monthly individual- and aggregate-level feedback reports on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient, consultation and clinical characteristics, and to describe GPs’ prescribing patterns. Results: Participating GPs (n = 33) registered 4641 patients with an aRTC, of whom 2122 (45.7%) received an antibiotic prescription. The majority (99.6%) of antibiotics prescribed were broad-spectrum and the most commonly prescribed antibiotics were macrolides (35.5%), followed by penicillins with a β-lactamase inhibitor (33.2%) and second-generation cephalosporins (14.2%). Specifically, co-amoxiclav (33.2%), clarithromycin (19.6%), azithromycin (15.1%) and cefuroxime axetil (10.9%) represented 78.8% of all antibiotics prescribed. Patients with tonsillar exudate (99.1%), purulent sputum (84%), otorrhoea (78%), tender cervical nodes (74.4%) and fever (73.1%) received most antibiotics. The diagnoses that received the highest proportion of antibiotic treatment were tonsillitis (96.3%), otitis media (92.5%) and bronchitis (87.5%). Wide variation in the choice of antibiotic class by diagnosis was observed. Conclusions: GP antibiotic prescribing in Malta is high. The abundant use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, particularly macrolides, is of particular concern and indicates that antibiotics are being used inappropriately. Efforts must be made to improve GP awareness of appropriate antibiotic prescribing., peer-reviewed

Introduction Antibiotic misuse is a key driver of antibiotic resistance. In 2015/2016, Maltese respondents reported the highest proportions of antibiotic consumption in Europe. Since antibiotics are prescription-only medicines in Malta, research on effective strategies targeting general practitioners’ (GPs) knowledge and behaviour is needed. Multifaceted behaviour change (BC) interventions are likely to be effective. Social marketing (SM) can provide the tools to promote sustained BC; however, its utilisation in Europe is limited. This paper aims to describe the design and methods of a multifaceted SM intervention aimed at changing Maltese GPs’ antibiotic prescribing behaviour for patients with acute respiratory tract infections (aRTIs). Methods and analysis This 4-year quasiexperimental intervention study will be carried out in Malta and includes three phases: preintervention, intervention and postintervention. The preintervention phase intends to gain insight into the practices and attitudes of GPs, pharmacists and parents through interviews, focus group discussions and antibiotic prescribing surveillance. A 6-month intervention targeting GPs will be implemented following assessment of their prescribing intention and readiness for BC. The intervention will likely comprise: prescribing guidelines, patient educational materials, delayed antibiotic prescriptions and GP education. Outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase through questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour and stages-of-change theory, as well as postintervention surveillance. The primary outcome will be the antibiotic prescribing rate for all patients with aRTIs. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of diagnosis-specific antibiotic prescription and symptomatic relief medication prescribed, and the change in GPs stage-of-change and their intention to prescribe antibiotics. Ethics and dissemination The project received ethical approval from the University of Malta’s Research Ethics Committee. Should this intervention successfully decrease antibiotic prescribing, it may be scaled up locally and transferred to similar settings. Trial registration number NCT03218930; Pre-results.