European Journal of General Practice最新文献

Background: Implementing asthma guideline recommendations is challenging and there is variation between countries, and different healthcare professionals (HCPs). The International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) has introduced the Asthma Right Care (ARC) programme implemented in 24 low, middle, and high countries, including Greece. It offers a promising approach drawn from social movements for health to improve asthma care by engaging HCPs in implementing guideline-based asthma care.

Objectives: To explore HCPs' perspectives on current provision of asthma care and their willingness to improve implementation of recommended guidelines using ARC programme tools in Greece.

Methods: A mixed methods study conducted from September 2020 to April 2021. A convenience sample of 30 pharmacists, and 10 General Practitioners (GPs), responded to a questionnaire investigating perceptions, and attitudes, towards implementation of asthma guidelines. Then, a qualitative survey followed with semi-structured interviews to evaluate the feedback obtained from HCPs to assess the content, and applicability of the ARC tools. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: A range of practical challenges in implementing guideline-recommended interventions, improving asthma control and management were described by all HCPs, including lack of time and education, high workload, patients' perceptions, and poor communication contributing to poor management and inadequate follow-up of people with asthma. However, most HCPs were willing to use ARC interventions to improve guideline implementation.

Conclusion: HCPs in Greece encounter challenges in implementing asthma guidelines; however, they can overcome these challenges by using ARC interventions and engagement tools to address barriers and implement efficient asthma management strategies.

Background: Anecdotal reports suggest that missed diagnosis in general practice during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a drop in life-threatening events (LTEs) detected in hospitals.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the accuracy of urgency allocation by telephone triage of patients with shortness of breath and/or chest discomfort in out-of-hours primary care (OHS-PC). Accuracy is defined as the correct allocation of high urgency to patients with LTEs and low urgency to those without.

Methods: Retrospective observational study with data from callers contacting OHS-PC for shortness of breath and/or chest discomfort, between 1 March and 1 June 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 1 March to 1 June 2020 (first wave COVID-19 pandemic). Sensitivity and specificity of telephone urgency allocation were compared during both periods with LTEs, including acute coronary syndrome, and pulmonary embolism, as the reference.

Results: 3,064 adults (1,840 COVID-19 pandemic and 1,224 pre-pandemic, p < 0.001) were included in the study. The sensitivity of urgency allocation was similar during and before the COVID-19 pandemic (0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75 vs. 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75, p = 0.944). Specificity was slightly higher during the COVID-19 pandemic (0.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.55 vs. 0.45, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.48, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Despite a surge in calls from adults with shortness of breath and/or chest discomfort during the COVID-19 pandemic, the accuracy of telephone triage for LTEs in OHS-PC remained similar to the pre-pandemic era. Improvement of telephone triage seems necessary in both periods.

Background: National Action Plans (NAPs) aim to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR) understanding and awareness but struggle to translate targets into clinically relevant guidance for general practice.

Objective: To identify and map antibiotic use targets in European general practice and explore if and how these targets are linked to NAPs.

Methods: A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE and SCOPUS, with additional manual searches. The research questions were: What are existing targets for antibiotic use in general practice in the 31 European countries? and How are these targets linked to the NAPs on AMR?. The results are presented narratively.

Results: 77 reports were included, of which 33 focused on national targets and general practice or linking national and local targets. Reports describe local strategies to achieve targets, such as prescriber feedback, benchmarking systems and financial incentives. However, these reports provide aggregated targets for general practice, such as a percentage reduction of antibiotics prescribed. These targets are set in general, for a specific type of antibiotic, for an amount per number of patients, in defined daily doses or items. None of the reports translate national targets into clinically relevant or practical targets for general practitioners.

Conclusion: Most European countries have an NAP with established targets, but the type and implementation of these targets vary between nations. Translating national targets into daily clinical practice is challenging and often lacks the involvement of prescribers. Aligning national and local targets would enhance coherence and more effectively contribute to improvements in antibiotic use.

Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation.This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access.As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors.As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.

Background: There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP).

Objectives: To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort.

Results: In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept -0.08, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation).

Conclusion: We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.

Background: 5.4 million people in the UK have asthma, with one third experiencing suboptimal control, leading to co-morbidities and increased healthcare use. A quarter of people with long-term conditions informally access peer support through online health communities (OHCs). However, integrating online peer support into primary care services to facilitate self-management is a new concept.

Objectives: To develop together with stakeholders the content, delivery, and recruitment strategy of a digital social intervention to promote use of online peer support amongst asthma patients in primary care.

Methods: Data was collected by qualitative, audio-recorded, one-to-one interviews with clinicians, and focus groups with patients with asthma from East London general practices. The topic guide was informed by patient and public involvement work. Data collected was iterative (i.e. new ideas were added to subsequent interviews and focus groups). Verbatim transcripts were uploaded to NVivo12 and thematically analysed.

Results: Twenty patients from several ethnicities participated across five focus groups, and three general practitioners and three practice nurses were interviewed. The study's outputs included: the intervention's face-to-face content; content of clinician training; patient-facing leaflets/material; and a survey to recruit eligible patients. An intervention consisting of a structured consultation with a primary care clinician followed by OHC engagement, was developed based on three generated themes: 'introducing OHCs', describing how clinicians should introduce OHCs; 'OHC engagement', describing factors influencing OHC engagement; and 'clinician training'.

Conclusion: Findings will assist clinicians in consultations about supporting self-management of patients through OHCs. Future research should evaluate feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of such support.

Background: Overweight and obesity in children is a major health problem. General practice might be a promising setting for identifying and for the first steps in the management of overweight and obesity in children.

Objective: To explore opinions, needs and preferences about the role of general practice in the management of overweight and obesity in children from the perspectives of Dutch general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses (PNs) and parents of children with and without overweight.

Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured focus group interviews. GPs and PNs were recruited from general practices from the region South-Western. Parents were mainly recruited via social media and primary schools. Twenty-five GPs, seven PNs and 18 parents were interviewed. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.

Results: GPs, PNs and parents agreed that it is the task of the GP to identify, address and refer children with overweight and obesity. However, GPs find it difficult to start this conversation due to time constraints; fear for the reaction of parents and children; lack of clarity about treatment and referral options. Parents indicated they are open to a conversation if the GP is non-judgmental, honest and respectful. PNs saw no role in managing overweight and obesity in children.

Conclusion: Although GPs experience several barriers, GPs, PNs and parents all agreed that GPs should play a role in identifying, addressing and referring children with overweight and obesity. Supportive tools are required for GPs in order to play this role.

Background: The use of generic drugs is a way for healthcare systems to reduce costs, particularly in ambulatory care. Several studies suggest that the prescriber's speciality is associated with the use of generic drugs, and that substitutable drugs prescribed by General Practitioners (GPs) are more often generic, but this association has never been studied in France. In the French legislative context, except in rare situations, all substitutable drugs prescribed should be dispensed in generic form.

Objectives: Compare the generic drugs dispensing rate among substitutable drugs dispensed in community pharmacies prescribed by French private GPs with that of other private specialists, all other specialities combined (first objective) or each other speciality taken individually (second objective).

Methods: We used a sample of an open available semi-aggregated database from the 2019 French health insurance system database. We compared with logistic regression models GPs to all other specialities combined, then GPs to the 19 other specialties taken individually, only on the substitutable drugs they prescribe in common.

Results: In 2019, 53.4% of the drugs prescribed by French private ambulatory physicians were substitutable drugs, and 81.5% of them were dispensed in generic form. After adjustment, the generic dispensing rate for substitutable drugs was significantly higher for GPs than for other specialties (ORa 0.74 [IC95% 0.72-0.76]). Thirteen of the nineteen other specialities taken individually, such as endocrinologists (ORa 0.64 [IC95% 0.57-0.72]) and cardiologists (ORa 0.60 [0.56-0.63]) had significantly lower generic dispensing rates than GPs. No other speciality had a rate significantly higher than GPs.

Conclusions: Substitutable drugs prescribed by French private GPs are more often dispensed in generic form than those from other private ambulatory specialties. To understand this result and optimise the use of generic drugs in outpatient settings, we need to study the different stages of drug use, from prescription by the physician to dispensing by the pharmacist and acceptance by the patient.