Barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of DECISION+, a continuing medical education program for optimizing decisions about antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care: a study protocol

Comparing Hospital and Primary Care Physicians' Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Antibiotic Prescribing: A Survey within the Centre Region of Portugal

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide public health problem, leading to longer hospital stays, raising medical costs and mortality levels. As physicians' attitudes are key factors to antibiotic prescribing, this study sought to explore their differences between primary care and hospital settings.

METHODS

A survey was conducted between September 2011 and February 2012 in the center region of Portugal in the form of a questionnaire to compare hospital (n = 154) and primary care (n = 421) physicians' attitudes and knowledge regarding antibiotic prescribing.

RESULTS

More than 70% of the attitudes were statistically different (p < 0.05) between hospital physicians (HPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs). When compared to PCPs, HPs showed higher agreement with antibiotic resistances being a public health problem and ascribed more importance to microbiological tests and to the influence of prescription on the development of resistances. On the other hand, PCPs tended to agree more regarding the negative impact of self-medication with antibiotics dispensed without medical prescription and the need for rapid diagnostic tests. Seven out of nine sources of knowledge's usefulness were statistically different between both settings, with HPs considering most of the knowledge sources to be more useful than PCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides the efforts made to improve both antibiotic prescribing and use, there are differences in the opinions between physicians working in different settings that might impact the quality of antibiotic prescribing. In the future, these differences must be considered to develop more appropriate interventions.

Implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorders Clinic: applying a knowledge translation framework to improve multidisciplinary care

PURPOSE

To evaluate the implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorder Clinic using a model of knowledge translation.

METHODS

A mixed methods design was used to evaluate implementation outcomes. After recognising poor referral rates to allied health, Movement Disorder Clinic team-members identified implementation barriers. Team- and process-level implementation strategies were designed and tailored to address these barriers. The primary outcome measure was the change in the proportion of patients referred to allied health, determined by comparing pre- and post-implementation documentation audits. Secondary outcome measures included clinician and consumer surveys to identify ongoing implementation barriers and stakeholder satisfaction.

RESULTS

Documentation from 90 medical records was included in the audits (post-intervention n = 45). There was a significant improvement in the referral rates to allied health from 53% to 84% (mean improvement 31%, p = 0.003, Fisher's exact test). However, documentation of disease education decreased by 38% (p = 0.000, Fisher's exact test). Movement Disorder Clinic team-members identified three main barriers to ongoing implementation: "memory and automaticity", "environmental context and resources" and "beliefs about capabilities". Thirty-seven consumer surveys were completed, showing high levels of satisfaction (86%) but ongoing educational needs (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorder Clinic was facilitated by a knowledge translation framework, leading to improved allied health referral rates and high levels of staff and consumer satisfaction, but unmet educational needs of consumers. Future research in the field of multidisciplinary healthcare for people with movement disorders is needed to determine the impact of these changes on patients' healthcare outcomes.Implications for rehabilitationMultidisciplinary integrated healthcare models may lead to better outcomes in progressive diseases such as Parkinson's disease, however, can be challenging to implement.A knowledge translation framework facilitated successful implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorders Clinic, leading to significantly improved rates of appropriate referrals to allied health, and staff and consumer satisfaction.Team-members identified three main barriers to ongoing implementation - "memory and automaticity", "environmental context and resources," and "beliefs about capabilities" - which may impact sustainability and should be considered in future implementation efforts.

Implementation Research on Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: Inventory of Intracluster Correlation Coefficients

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0-0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0-0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0-0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0-0.06), for which, respectively, "decisional conflict" (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39-0.57), "reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients" (0.5; 0.11-0.89), and "quality of the decision" (0.45; 0.14-0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0-0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

Shared Decision-Making with Parents of Acutely Ill Children: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has mostly been used with adults and parents in the primary care setting, and there is limited knowledge on the use of SDM with parents of acutely ill children. The objective of this study was to review the literature on SDM with parents in the management of acutely ill children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English language studies published from the time of database inception to February, 2017. Study eligibility criterion was use of SDM with parents for children aged 18 years or younger with an acute medical problem.

RESULTS

We identified 2 ongoing clinical trials and 10 published studies that met inclusion criteria: 2 using hypothetical SDM scenarios, 1 mixed methods study, and 7 intervention studies. Only 1 study compared an SDM intervention with usual care in a randomized controlled trial. The limited literature shows that parents of acutely ill children have differing preferences for testing and/or treatment, and that they generally want the opportunity to express those preferences through an SDM process. Use of SDM often results in acutely ill children undergoing fewer and/or less intensive testing or treatment, although the effect on outcomes is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents welcome participation in SDM for management decisions with their acutely ill child. Further investigation is needed to determine how best to implement SDM with parents of acutely ill children and to assess the effect of SDM on outcomes.

Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.

Interventions Aimed at Reducing Use of Low-Value Health Services: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce low-value care has been insufficiently summarized to allow for translation to practice. This article systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value care and the quality of those studies. We found that multicomponent interventions addressing both patient and clinician roles in overuse have the greatest potential to reduce low-value care. Clinical decision support and performance feedback are promising strategies with a solid evidence base, and provider education yields changes by itself and when paired with other strategies. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance, insurer restrictions, and risk-sharing contracts to reduce use of low-value care. While the literature reveals important evidence on strategies used to reduce low-value care, meaningful gaps persist. More experimentation, paired with rigorous evaluation and publication, is needed.

Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

DECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians' intention to engage in SDM.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients' D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians' D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients' and physicians' D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSION

DECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians' intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.

Long-term adherence to a local guideline on postoperative body temperature measurement: mixed methods analysis

AIM

To find out whether a successful multifaceted implementation approach of a local evidence-based guideline on postoperative body temperature measurements (BTM) was persistent over time, and which factors influenced long-term adherence.

METHODS

Mixed methods analysis. Patient records were retrospectively examined to measure guideline adherence. Data on influencing factors were collected in focus group meetings for nurses and a plenary meeting with an interactive questionnaire for doctors.

RESULTS

Records from 102 surgical patients were studied, totalling 1226 BTM. According to the guideline, an indication for BTM was present in 55% (679/1226). Actually, BTM were taken in 60% (736/1226), of which 55% (403/736) was in accordance with the guideline. The overall adherence rate to the guideline was 50% (617/1226). Belief in the advantages of the guideline and strong staff support appeared to facilitate long-term adherence. Barriers were, the controversial nature of the guideline, the lack of self-efficacy among nurses and doctors as to clinical judgement to identify an infection when refraining from BTM, and a lack of management and staff doctor support. Furthermore, newly appointed nurses and doctors were trained to measure BTM during their initial medical or nursing education, which was in contradiction with the guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted implementation strategy is not sufficient to maintain long-term adherence. To ensure long-term adherence, especially of controversial guidelines, adherence should be monitored and reported regularly over time. Strong staff support and leadership on all wards is crucial to maintain awareness. Medical and nursing curricula should include the pros and cons of taking BTM, combined with enhancing self-efficacy.

Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Few interventions have proven effective in reducing the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. We evaluated the effect of DECISION+2, a shared decision-making training program, on the percentage of patients who decided to take antibiotics after consultation with a physician or resident.

METHODS

We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of family practice teaching unit, with 2 study arms: DECISION+2 and control. The DECISION+2 training program included a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive seminar about shared decision-making. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consultation. We also recorded patients' perception that shared decision-making had occurred. Two weeks after the initial consultation, we assessed patients' adherence to the decision, repeat consultation, decisional regret and quality of life.

RESULTS

We compared outcomes among 181 patients who consulted 77 physicians in 5 family practice teaching units in the DECISION+2 group, and 178 patients who consulted 72 physicians in 4 family practice teaching units in the control group. The percentage of patients who decided to use antibiotics after consultation was 52.2% in the control group and 27.2% in the DECISION+2 group (absolute difference 25.0%, adjusted relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.68). DECISION+2 was associated with patients taking a more active role in decision-making (Z = 3.9, p < 0.001). Patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation were similar in both groups.

INTERPRETATION

The shared decision-making program DECISION+2 enhanced patient participation in decision-making and led to fewer patients deciding to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. This reduction did not have a negative effect on patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT01116076.

What motivates family physicians to participate in training programs in shared decision making?

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the factors that influence family physician (FP) participation in continuing professional development (CPD) programs in shared decision making (SDM). We sought to identify the factors that motivate FPs to participate in DECISION+, a CPD program in SDM.

METHODS

In 2007-2008, we collected data from 39 FPs who participated in a pilot randomized trial of DECISION+. In 2010, we collected data again from 11 of those participants and from 12 new subjects. Based on the theory of planned behavior, our questionnaire assessed FPs' intentions to participate in a CPD program in SDM and evaluated FPs' attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. We also conducted 4 focus groups to explore FPs' salient beliefs.

RESULTS

In 2010, FPs' mean intention to participate in a CPD program in SDM was relatively strong (2.6 ± 0.5 on a scale from -3 = "strongly disagree" to +3 = "strongly agree"). Affective attitude was the only factor significantly associated with intention (r = .51, p = .04). FPs identified the attractions of participating in a CPD program in SDM as (1) its interest, (2) the pleasure of learning, and (3) professional stimulation. Facilitators of their participation were (1) a relevant clinical topic, (2) an interactive program, (3) an accessible program, and (4) decision support tools.

DISCUSSION

To attract FPs to a CPD program in SDM, CPD developers should make the program interesting, enjoyable, and professionally stimulating. They should choose a clinically relevant topic, ensure that the program is interactive and accessible, and include decision support tools.

Training family physicians and residents in family medicine in shared decision making to improve clinical decisions regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: protocol for a clustered randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To explore ways to reduce the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs), we conducted a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate DECISION+, a training program in shared decision making (SDM) for family physicians (FPs). This pilot project demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a large clustered RCT and showed that DECISION+ reduced the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician. Consequently, the objective of this study is to evaluate, in patients consulting for ARIs, if exposure of physicians to a modified version of DECISION+, DECISION+2, would reduce the proportion of patients who decide to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a multi-center, two-arm, parallel clustered RCT. The 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) in the network of the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine of Université Laval will be randomized to a DECISION+2 intervention group (experimental group) or to a no-intervention control group. These FPTUs will recruit patients consulting family physicians and residents in family medicine enrolled in the study. There will be two data collection periods: pre-intervention (baseline) including 175 patients with ARIs in each study arm, and post-intervention including 175 patients with ARIs in each study arm (total n = 700). The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients reporting a decision to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician. Secondary outcome measures include: 1) physicians and patients' decisional conflict; 2) the agreement between the parties' decisional conflict scores; and 3) perception of patients and physicians that SDM occurred. Also in patients, at 2 weeks follow-up, adherence to the decision, consultation for the same reason, decisional regret, and quality of life will be assessed. Finally, in both patients and physicians, intention to engage in SDM in future clinical encounters will be assessed. Intention-to-treat analyses will be applied and account for the nested design of the trial will be taken into consideration.

DISCUSSION

DECISION+2 has the potential to reduce antibiotics use for ARIs by priming physicians and patients to share decisional process and empowering patients to make informed, value-based decisions.