How did a Quality Premium financial incentive influence antibiotic prescribing in primary care? Views of Clinical Commissioning Group and general practice professionals

Background: The Quality Premium (QP) was introduced for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to optimize antibiotic prescribing, but it remains unclear how it was implemented. Objectives: To understand responses to the QP and how it was perceived to influence antibiotic prescribing. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: The findings were organized into four categories. (i) Communication: this was perceived as unstructured and infrequent, and CCG professionals were unsure whether they received QP funding. (ii) Implementation: this was influenced by available local resources and competing priorities, with multifaceted and tailored strategies seen as most helpful for engaging general practices. Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies were implemented independently from the QP, motivated by quality improvement. (iii) Mechanisms: the QP raised the priority of AMS nationally and locally, and provided prescribing targets to aim for and benchmark against, but money was not seen as reinvested into AMS. (iv) Impact and sustainability: the QP was perceived as successful, but targets were considered challenging for a minority of CCGs and practices due to contextual factors (e.g. deprivation, understaffing). CCG professionals were concerned with potential discontinuation of the QP and prescribing rates levelling off. Conclusions: CCG and practice professionals expressed positive views of the QP and associated prescribing targets and feedback. The QP helped influence change mainly by raising the priority of AMS and defining change targets rather than providing additional funding. To maximize impact, behavioural mechanisms of financial incentives should be considered pre-implementation

Pain management in acute otitis media: a qualitative study of parents' views and expectations

BACKGROUND: For unclarified reasons, parents tend to be cautious about administering analgesics to their children, potentially leading to suboptimal management of AOM symptoms. We aim to understand parents' views and expectations of pain management in acute otitis media (AOM) in children. METHODS: Qualitative study alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial (PIM-POM study) aimed at optimising pain management in childhood AOM. We purposefully sampled 14 parents of children diagnosed with AOM by their GP, who were recruited to the trial between November 2017 and May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were held at home in the first two weeks after trial enrollment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Parents experienced difficulties in recognising earache and other symptoms of an ear infection. They consulted the GP for a diagnosis, for reassurance and for management advice. Parents shared that, prior to consultation, they had insufficient knowledge of the benefits of correctly dosed pain medication at regularly scheduled intervals. Parents valued the GP's advice on pain management, and were happy to accept pain medication as standalone therapy, provided that the GP explained why antibiotics would not be needed. Parents' views and expectations of pain management in AOM were shaped by previous experiences of AOM within their family; those with a positive experience of pain medication are more likely to use it in subsequent AOM episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with AOM consult the GP to help cope with uncertainties in recognising symptoms of AOM, and to receive management advice. It is important that GPs are aware of parents' lack of understanding of the role of pain medication in managing AOM, and that they address this during the consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, identifier NTR4920 (registration date: 19 December 2014)

Effectiveness of analgesic ear drops as add-on treatment to oral analgesics in children with acute otitis media: study protocol of the OPTIMA pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Ear pain is the most prominent symptom of childhood acute otitis media (AOM). To control the pain and reduce reliance on antibiotics, evidence of effectiveness for alternative interventions is urgently needed. This trial aims to investigate whether analgesic ear drops added to usual care provide superior ear pain relief over usual care alone in children presenting to primary care with AOM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, open, superiority trial with cost-effectiveness analysis and nested mixed-methods process evaluation in general practices in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 300 children aged 1–6 years with a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of AOM and ear pain. Children will be randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) to either (1) lidocaine hydrochloride 5 mg/g ear drops (Otalgan) one to two drops up to six times daily for a maximum of 7 days in addition to usual care (oral analgesics, with/without antibiotics); or (2) usual care. Parents will complete a symptom diary for 4 weeks as well as generic and disease-specific quality of life questionnaires at baseline and 4 weeks. The primary outcome is the parent-reported ear pain score (0–10) over the first 3 days. Secondary outcomes include proportion of children consuming antibiotics, oral analgesic use and overall symptom burden in the first 7 days; number of days with ear pain, number of GP reconsultations and subsequent antibiotic prescribing, adverse events, complications of AOM and cost-effectiveness during 4-week follow-up; generic and disease-specific quality of life at 4 weeks; parents’ and GPs’ views and experiences with treatment acceptability, usability and satisfaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht, the Netherlands, has approved the protocol (21-447/G-D). All parents/guardians of participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant (inter)national scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register: NL9500; date of registration: 28 May 2021. At the time of publication of the study protocol paper, we were unable to make any amendments to the trial registration record in the Netherlands Trial Register. The addition of a data sharing plan was required to adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. The trial was therefore reregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05651633; date of registration: 15 December 2022). This second registration is for modification purposes only and the Netherlands Trial Register record (NL9500) should be regarded as the primary trial registration

A protocol paper: community engagement interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in socially disadvantaged populations in the UK: an implementation research study

Background: Cardiovascular disorders (CVD) are the single greatest cause of mortality worldwide. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) has launched an initiative of health checks over and above current care to tackle CVD. However, the uptake of Health Checks is poor in disadvantaged communities. This protocol paper sets out a UK-based study (Sussex and Nottingham) aiming to co-produce a community delivered CVD risk assessment and coaching intervention to support community members to reduce their risk of CVD. The overall aim of the project is to implement a tailored-to-context community engagement (CE) intervention on awareness of CVD risks in vulnerable populations in high, middle and low-income countries. The specific objectives of the study are to enhance stakeholder' engagement; to implement lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular primary prevention, in disadvantaged populations and motivate uptake of NHS health checks. Methods: This study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in three phases of evaluation, including pre-, per-and post-implementation. To ensure contextual appropriateness the 'Scaling-up Packages of Interventions for Cardiovascular disease prevention in selected sites in Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa: An implementation research' (SPICES) project will organize a multi-component community-engagement intervention. For the qualitative component, the pre-implementation phase will involve a contextual assessment and stakeholder mapping, exploring potentials for CVD risk profiling strategies and led by trained Community Health Volunteers (CHV) to identify accessibility and acceptability. The per-implementation phase will involve healthy lifestyle counselling provided by CHVs and evaluation of the outcome to identify fidelity and scalability. The post-implementation phase will involve developing sustainable community-based strategies for CVD risk reduction. All three components will include a process evaluation. A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial of the roll out will focus on implementation outcomes including uptake and engagement and changes in risk profiles. The quantitative component includes pre and post-intervention surveys. The theory of the socio-ecological framework will be applied to analyse the community engagement approach. Discussion: Based on the results ultimately a sustainable community engagement-based strategy for the primary prevention of CVD risk will be developed to enhance the performance of NHS health care in the UK. The Trial Registration number is ISRCTN68334579

Patient and prescriber views of penicillin-allergy testing and subsequent antibiotic use: a rapid review

About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a "penicillin allergy label" in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients' experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result

Experiences and needs of persons living with a household member infected with SARS-CoV-2: A mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Households are important sites for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and preventive measures are recommended. This study aimed to 1) investigate the impact of living with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; 2) understand how household members implemented infection control recommendations in their home; and 3) identify the information and support needs of household members. METHODS: For this observational mixed-methods study, households with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited via drive-through testing sites of Municipal Health Services, healthcare worker screening or hospital emergency visits in the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands and via primary care physicians, hospital emergency visits or preoperative screening in the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium. We recorded household characteristics, including characteristics of all household members, together with their views on prevention measures. In a subset of households one adult household member was asked to participate in an interview investigating their views on preventive measures. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data by rapid framework analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate findings. RESULTS: Thirty-four households (120 household members) were included in the quantitative survey. Twenty-two households were invited to be interviewed, of which 18 completed an interview (response 81.8%). Survey data showed that almost all households implemented some preventive measures, the use of face masks being least frequently reported. Measures taken depended on what was physically possible, the perceived severity of illness of the index patient and to what extent household members were willing to limit social interaction. Respondents did not believe in the effectiveness of wearing face masks within the house, and from the interviews this was explained by media coverage of face masks, impracticality and the stigma associated with wearing masks. Interviewees reported that quarantine had a high emotional burden and wished to have more information about the exact duration of quarantine, their own COVID-19 status, symptoms and when to seek medical help. CONCLUSION: People were willing to implement prevention measures, however actual adherence depended on perceived severity of illness and the perceived risk of becoming infected. Homes are social environments and recommendations for infection prevention should account for this context. Incorporating our findings into policy making could provide households with more relevant and actionable advice

Evaluation of a web-based intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for LRTI in six European countries: quantitative process analysis of the GRACE/INTRO randomised controlled trial.

To reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance, there is a pressing need for worldwide implementation of effective interventions to promote more prudent prescribing of antibiotics for acute LRTI. This study is a process analysis of the GRACE/INTRO trial of a multifactorial intervention that reduced antibiotic prescribing for acute LRTI in six European countries. The aim was to understand how the interventions were implemented and to examine effects of the interventions on general practitioners' (GPs') and patients' attitudes

Social and contextual influences on antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship: a qualitative study with clinical commissioning group and general practice professionals

Antibiotic prescribing in England varies considerably between Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and general practices. We aimed to assess social and contextual factors affecting antibiotic prescribing and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG professionals and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Social/contextual influences were grouped into the following four categories: (1) Immediate context, i.e., patients’ social characteristics (e.g., deprivation and culture), clinical factors, and practice and clinician characteristics (e.g., “struggling” with staff shortage/turnover) were linked to higher prescribing. (2) Wider context, i.e., pressures on the healthcare system, limited resources, and competing priorities were seen to reduce engagement with AMS. (3) Collaborative and whole system approaches, i.e., communication, multidisciplinary networks, leadership, and teamwork facilitated prioritizing AMS, learning, and consistency. (4) Relativity of appropriate prescribing, i.e., “high” or “appropriate” prescribing was perceived as relative, depending on comparators, and disregarding different contexts, but social norms around antibiotic use among professionals and patients seemed to be changing. Further optimization of antibiotic prescribing would benefit from addressing social/contextual factors and addressing wider health inequalities, not only targeting individual clinicians. Tailoring and adapting to local contexts and constraints, ensuring adequate time and resources for AMS, and collaborative, whole system approaches to promote consistency may help promote AMS

Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: A cluster randomised trial

Background: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. Methods: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12-30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. Results: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8-82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6-45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. Conclusions: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals