Search

Objective: To establish prevalence and associations of provision of nursing home visits (NHV) and home visits (HV) by early‐career specialist GPs. Of particular interest were associations of rurality with performing NHVs and HVs. Methods: A cross‐sectional study. Design: A questionnaire‐based study. Setting: Australian general practice. Participants: Early‐career specialist GPs, practising in Australia, who attained Fellowship between January 2016 and July 2018, inclusive, having completed GP training in NSW, the ACT, Eastern Victoria or Tasmania. Main Outcome Measures: Current provision of NHV and HV. Results: NHV were provided by 34% of participants (59% in rural areas) and HV by 41% of participants (60% in rural areas). Remote, rural or regional practice location, as compared to major‐city practice, was strongly associated with performing NHV as an early‐career specialist GP; multivariable OR 5.87 (95% CI: 2.73, 12.6), p < 0.001, and with the provision of HV; multivariable OR 3.64 (95% CI: 1.63, 8.11), p = 0.002. Rurality of GP training (prior to attaining Fellowship) was significantly univariably associated with providing NHV and with providing HV as an early‐career specialist GP. On multivariable analyses, these were no longer statistically significant. Conclusion: Early‐career specialist GPs located in regional/remote areas are more likely than their urban colleagues to provide NHV and HV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of telehealth has increased dramatically since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about how GPs manage acute infections during telehealth, and the potential impact on antimicrobial stewardship. Aim: To explore the experiences and perceptions of GP trainees' and supervisors' use of telehealth, and how it influences their management of acute infections. Design & setting: Australian GP registrars (trainees) and supervisors were recruited via email through their training organisations. Semi-structured interviews with 18 participants were conducted between July and August 2022. Method: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Results: We identified six overall themes. 1. Participants experienced impaired diagnostic capacity during telehealth consultations. 2. Attempts to improve diagnostic acuity included various methods, such as having patients self-examine. 3. The management of clinical uncertainty frequently entailed referring patients for in-person assessment, overinvestigating, or overtreating. 4. Antibiotic prescribing decisions during telehealth were informed by less information than were in-person consults, with varying impact. 5. Participants believed that other GPs improperly prescribed antibiotics during telehealth. 6. Supervisors believed that registrars hadn't developed the knowledge or skills to determine when conditions could be managed appropriately via telehealth. Conclusion: Telehealth has potential for reducing transmission of acute infections and increasing access to healthcare. However, the implications of GPs, especially less experienced GPs, making diagnoses with less certainty, and consequently compromising antimicrobial stewardship, are a concern. Patient self-assessment tools may improve outcomes of telehealth consultations for acute infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In Australian general practitioner (GP) training, feedback and reflection on inpractice experience is central to developing GP registrars' (trainees') clinical competencies. Patient encounter tracking and learning tools (PETALs) that encompass an audit of consecutive patient consultations, feedback, and reflection are used to determine registrars' in-practice exposure and have been suggested as a tool for learning within a programmatic assessment framework. However, there is limited qualitative literature on the utility of PETALs in GP training. Aim. To provide greater understanding of how PETALs are used in GP training, using Registrars' Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) as a case study. Methods. Medical educators, supervisors, and registrars from two Australian regional GP training organisations participated in focus groups and interviews, designed to explore participants' perceptions of ReCEnT's utility. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results. Eight themes were identified that enhance our understanding of: how ReCEnT reports are used (reassuring registrars, facilitating self-reflection, identifying learning needs), what enables ReCEnT to reach its full potential (a culture of reflection, meaningful discussions with supervisors and medical educators, valuing objective data), and differences in understanding about ReCEnT's role in a programmatic assessment framework (as a tool for learning, as 'one piece of the puzzle'). Discussion. The findings were used to develop a Structure-Process-Outcomes model to demonstrate how ReCEnT is currently used and explores how it can be used for learning, rather than of learning, in a programmatic assessment framework for GP training. ReCEnT's longitudinal format has potential for enhancing learning throughout training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. The aim of the study was to establish whether two previously described barriers to effective in-consultation assistance-seeking by general practice (GP) vocational specialist trainees (ie concern about patient impressions of their competence, and discomfort presenting to supervisors in front of patients) influenced the frequency of trainee in-consultation assistanceseeking from their supervisor. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study nested in the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Clinical Training ongoing cohort study of Australian GP trainees. Trainee participants completed contemporaneous records of 60 consecutive patient consultations, including whether supervisory assistance was sought. Trainees also completed a cross-sectional survey including items eliciting their beliefs about patient impressions and their own discomfort in seeking in-consultation supervisory assistance. These were factors of interest in multivariable logistic regression analyses; the outcome factor in both regression models was the seeking of inconsultation supervisory assistance. Results. In 2018, 778 trainees (778/876, response rate 89%) completed the cross-sectional survey. No association was found between the odds of inconsultation help-seeking and perceived decrease in patient impressions of trainee competence (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.31; P = 0.36) or higher comfort presenting outside patients' hearing (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.05; P = 0.19). Discussion. Contrary to expected utility models of helpseeking, trainees may not consider personal discomfort or impression management to be important enough, compared to patient safety and other considerations, to influence decisions regarding in-consultation help-seeking. Clinical supervisors should, nevertheless, consider the potential personal costs to trainees and maintain trainee self-esteem and confidence by providing in-consultation assistance in front of patients as comfortably and effectively as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. Patient encounter tools provide feedback and potentially reflection on general practitioner (GP) registrars' in-practice learning and may contribute to the formative assessment of clinical competencies. However, little is known about the perceived utility of such tools. Aim. To investigate the perceived utility of a patient encounter tool by GP registrars, their supervisors, and medical educators (MEs). Methods. General practice registrars, supervisors and MEs from two Australian regional training organisations completed a cross-sectional questionnaire. Registrars rated how Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a patient encounter tool, influenced their reflection on, and change in, clinical practice, learning and training. Supervisors' and MEs' perceptions provided contextual information about understanding their registrars' clinical practice, learning and training needs. Results. Questionnaires were completed by 48% of registrars (n = 90), 22% of supervisors (n = 182), and 61% of MEs (n = 62). Most registrars agreed that ReCEnT helped them reflect on their clinical practice (79%), learning needs (69%) and training needs (72%). Many registrars reported changing their clinical practice (54%) and learning approaches (51%). Fewer (37%) agreed that ReCEnT influenced them to change their training plans. Most supervisors (68%) and MEs (82%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' clinical practice. Similarly, most supervisors (63%) and MEs (68%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' learning and training needs. Discussion. ReCEnT can prompt self-reflection among registrars, leading to changes in clinical practice, learning approaches and training plans. Reaching its potential as an assessment for learning (as opposed to an assessment of learning) requires effective engagement between registrars, their supervisors and MEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The health and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance (in Australia is significant. Interventions that help guide and improve appropriate prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in the community represent an opportunity to slow the spread of resistant bacteria. Clinicians who work in primary care are potentially the most influential health care professionals to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance, because this is where most antibiotics are prescribed. Methods: A cluster randomised trial was conducted comparing two parallel groups of 27 urban general practices in Queensland, Australia: 13 intervention and 14 control practices, with 56 and 54 general practitioners (GPs), respectively. This study evaluated an integrated, multifaceted evidence-based package of interventions implemented over a 6-month period. The evaluation included quantitative and qualitative components, and an economic analysis. Results: A multimodal package of interventions resulted in a reduction of 3.81 prescriptions per GP per month. This equates to 1280.16 prescriptions for the 56 GPs in the intervention practices over the 6-month period. The cost per prescription avoided was A$148. The qualitative feedback showed that the interventions were well received by the GPs and did not impact on consultation time. Providing GPs with a choice of tools might enhance their uptake and support for antimicrobial stewardship in the community. Conclusions: A multimodal package of interventions to enhance rational prescribing of antibiotics is effective, feasible and acceptable in general practice. Investment in antimicrobial stewardship strategies in primary care may ultimately provide the important returns for public health into the future. Clinicians who work in primary care are potentially the most influential health care professionals to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance, because this is where most antibiotics are prescribed. We demonstrated that the implementation of a multimodal package of interventions for acute respiratory tract infections in general practice resulted in a reduction of prescriptions and were well received. Providing GPs with a choice of tools might enhance their uptake and support for antimicrobial stewardship in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 x 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, Author(s): Jane S. Hocking 1,*, Anna Wood 1,2, Meredith Temple-Smith 2, Sabine Braat 1, Matthew Law 3, Liliana Bulfone 4, Callum Jones 1, Mieke van Driel 5, Christopher K. Fairley [...]