Promoters and inhibitors for quality improvement work in general practice: a qualitative analysis of 2715 free-text replies

Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement work is an essential feature of healthcare services, including general practice. In this study, we aimed to gain more knowledge regarding general practitioners' (GPs) motivation for such work in their practices, as well as what kind of measures were considered motivating and feasible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted five focus group interviews among Norwegian GPs between November 2021 and November 2022. We included 21 GPs of varying age, gender, experience, and geographic situation. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed by Systematic Text Condensation, a thematic cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

Many GPs had a diverse and imprecise understanding of the term quality improvement, and sound routines in everyday practice were often given as examples of quality improvement measures. There was a universal attitude that quality improvement initiatives should be close to practice, professionally relevant, and sufficiently small to be manageable. The availability of professional communities, either in the GP practices or in continuous medical education groups, was important for motivation. The role of nurses and health secretaries was highlighted as essential to achieve change. Participants commonly described negative reactions to programs that were imposed by external actors without regard for the GPs' perceived needs.

CONCLUSION

GPs were motivated for quality improvement measures provided feasibility within the framework of general practice. Well-functioning professional communities, including involvement of nurses and health-secretaries, were emphasised as requisite for quality improvement. Small scale quality improvement programs suited for the needs of general practice were well received and should be further developed.

Advancing integrated paediatric care in Australian general practices: Qualitative insights from the SC4C GP-paediatrician model of care

The Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C) is a general practitioner (GP)-paediatrician integrated model of care that consists of co-consulting sessions and case discussions in the general practice setting, with email and telephone support provided by paediatricians to GPs during weekdays. This model was implemented in 21 general practices in Australia (11 Victoria and 10 New South Wales). Our study aimed to identify the factors moderating the implementation of SC4C from the perspectives of GPs, general practice personnel, paediatricians and families. We conducted a qualitative study as part of the mixed-methods implementation evaluation of the SC4C trial. We collected data through virtual and in-person focus groups at the general practices and phone, virtual and in-person interviews. Data was analysed using an iterative hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis. Twenty-one focus groups and thirty-seven interviews were conducted. Overall, participants found SC4C acceptable and suitable for general practices, with GPs willing to learn and expand their paediatric care role. GPs cited improved confidence and knowledge due to the model. Paediatricians reported an enhanced understanding of the general practice context and the strain under which GPs work. GPs and paediatricians reported that this model allowed them to build trust-based relationships with a common goal of improving care for children. Additionally, they felt some aspects, including the lack of remuneration and the work and effort required to deliver the model, need to be considered for the long-term success of the model. Families expressed their satisfaction with the shared knowledge and quality of care jointly delivered by GPs and paediatricians and highlighted that this model of care provides easy access to specialty services without out-of-pocket costs. Future research should focus on finding strategies to ensure the long-term Implementation of this model of care with a particular focus on the individual stressors in general practices.

Feedback reports to the general practitioner (GP) on the patients' experiences: are GPs interested, and is this interest associated with GP factors and patient experience scores?

BACKGROUND

Patient experience feedback is key in patient centred health systems, but empirical evidence of general practitioner (GP) interest in it is sparse. We aimed to: (i) quantitatively estimate the level of GP interest for feedback reports on patient experience; (ii) explore determinants of such interest; and (iii) examine potential association between a priori interest and patient experience.

METHODS

The patient experience survey included maximum 300 randomly selected patients for each of 50 randomly selected GPs (response rate 41.4%, n = 5,623). GPs were sent a postal letter offering feedback reports and were grouped according to their replies: (i) interested in the report; (ii) not interested. Associations between interest and GP variables were assessed with Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression, while associations between interest and scores for 5 patient experiences scales were assessed with multilevel regression models.

RESULTS

About half (n = 21; 45.7%) of the GPs showed interest in the report by asking to receive the report. The only GP variable associated with a priori interest was being a specialist in general practice (58.6% vs. 23.5% for those without) (P = 0.021). Interest was significantly associated with the practice patient experience scale (4.1 higher score compared with those not interested, P = 0.048). Interest in the report had small and nonsignificant associations with the remaining patient experience scales.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of the GPs, and almost 3 in 5 of specialists in general practice, were interested in receiving a GP-specific feedback report on patient experiences. Interest in the report was generally not related to patient experience scores.

Decisions regarding antibiotic prescribing for acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice. A qualitative focus group study

BACKGROUND

Acute sinusitis is a frequent reason for primary care visits. Most patients recover within two weeks without antibiotic treatment. Despite this, about 50% of patients with acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice are still prescribed antibiotics. We do not know the reason behind this discrepancy.

AIM

To explore the clinical decision-making process and reasons for treatment with antibiotics for acute sinusitis among Norwegian general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Five focus group interviews were conducted (N = 25) in different parts of Norway, including GPs of various age, gender, and experience. The interviews were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation.

RESULTS

The results showed a very diverse management of acute sinusitis among GPs, with decisions regarding antibiotics not always aligning with guideline recommendations. Many of the GPs did not agree with the Norwegian guidelines for antibiotics and chose something other than phenoxymethylpenicillin as their first choice. Clinical predictors emphasized in decision-making were pain complaints and patient exhaustion. Pragmatic factors such as weekday, travel plans, or a full waiting room could also influence the decision.

CONCLUSION

GPs found it difficult to identify when patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment for acute sinusitis, and different strategies were used to make prescribing decisions. For several GPs the degree of pain was one of the decisive reasons for antibiotic prescribing, however the guidelines for antibiotics do not give sufficient advice regarding pain treatment. These results suggest a need for revaluation of guideline contents and the way they are communicated to GPs.

Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN)

Background

Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings.

Objectives and methods

To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information.

Results

Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability.

Conclusions

The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.