Adoption of C-reactive protein rapid tests for the management of acute childhood infections in hospitals in the Netherlands and England: a comparative health systems analysis.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests (CRP POCTs) in hospitals varies across Europe. We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to different levels of adoption of CRP POCTs for the management of acute childhood infections in two countries. METHODS: Comparative qualitative analysis of the implementation of CRP POCTs in the Netherlands and England. The study was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Data were collected through document analysis and qualitative interviews with stakeholders. Documents were identified by a scoping literature review, search of websites, and through the stakeholders. Stakeholders were sampled purposively initially, and then by snowballing. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Forty-one documents resulted from the search and 46 interviews were conducted. Most hospital healthcare workers in the Netherlands were familiar with CRP POCTs as the tests were widely used and trusted in primary care. Moreover, although diagnostics were funded through similar Diagnosis Related Group reimbursement mechanisms in both countries, the actual funding for each hospital was more constrained in England. Compared to primary care, laboratory-based CRP tests were usually available in hospitals and their use was encouraged in both countries because they were cheaper. However, CRP POCTs were perceived as useful in some hospitals of the two countries in which the laboratory could not provide CRP measures 24/7 or within a short timeframe, and/or in emergency departments where expediting patient care was important. CONCLUSIONS: CRP POCTs are more available in hospitals in the Netherlands because of the greater familiarity of Dutch healthcare workers with the tests which are widely used in primary care in their country and because there are more funding constraints in England. However, most hospitals in the Netherlands and England have not adopted CRP POCTs because the alternative CRP measurements from the hospital laboratory are available in a few hours and at a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage, a data-driven pediatric sepsis triage platform in Eastern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis, characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection, has a case-fatality over 20% in severe cases in low-and-middle income countries. Early diagnosis and treatment have proven benefits, prompting our implementation of Smart Triage at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda, a program that expedites treatment through a data-driven triage platform. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage to explore its impact on patients and inform multicenter scale up. METHODS: The parent clinical trial for Smart Triage was pre-post in design, using the proportion of children receiving sepsis treatment within one hour as the primary outcome, a measure linked to mortality benefit in existing literature. We used a decision-analytic model with Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the cost per year-of-life-lost (YLL) averted of Smart Triage from societal, government, and patient perspectives. Healthcare utilization and lost work for seven days post-discharge were translated into costs and productivity losses via secondary linkage data. RESULTS: In 2021 United States dollars, Smart Triage requires an annuitized program cost of only $0.05 per child, but results in $15.32 saved per YLL averted. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of only $3 per YLL averted, well below published cost-effectiveness threshold estimates for Uganda, Smart Triage approaches 100% probability of cost-effectiveness over the baseline manual triage system. This cost-effectiveness was observed from societal, government, and patient perspectives. The cost-effectiveness observed was driven by a reduction in admission that, while explainable by an improved triage mechanism, may also be partially attributable to changes in healthcare utilization influenced by the coronavirus pandemic. However, Smart Triage remains cost-effective in sensitivity analyses introducing a penalty factor of up to 50% in the reduction in admission. CONCLUSION: Smart Triage's ability to both save costs and avert YLLs indicates that patients benefit both economically and clinically, while its high probability of cost-effectiveness strongly supports multicenter scale up. Areas for further research include the incorporation of years lived with disability when sepsis disability weights in low-resource settings become available and analyzing budget impact during multicenter scale up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04304235 (registered on 11/03/2020, clinicaltrials.gov).

The Impact of Virtual Consultations on the Quality of Primary Care: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of virtual consultations, catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. Owing to their rapid global proliferation, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on all aspects of care quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care. METHODS: A total of 6 databases were searched. Studies that evaluated the impact of virtual consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were performed by 2 pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: In total, 30 studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in this review. Our findings suggest that virtual consultations are equally effective to or more effective than face-to-face care for the management of certain conditions, including mental illness, excessive smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, 4 studies indicated positive impacts on some aspects of patient-centeredness; however, a negative impact was noted on patients' perceived autonomy support (ie, the degree to which people perceive those in positions of authority to be autonomy supportive). Virtual consultations may reduce waiting times, lower patient costs, and reduce rates of follow-up in secondary and tertiary care settings. Evidence for the impact on clinical safety is extremely limited. Evidence regarding equity was considerably mixed. Overall, it appears that virtual care is more likely to be used by younger, female patients, with disparities among other subgroups depending on contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrated that virtual consultations may be as effective as face-to-face care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care; however, there is a considerable lack of evidence on the impacts on patient safety, equity, and patient-centeredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts should be devoted. Capitalizing on real-world data, as well as clinical trials, is crucial to ensure that the use of virtual consultations is tailored according to patient needs and is inclusive of the intended end users. Data collection methods that are bespoke to the primary care context and account for patient characteristics are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future virtual care policies.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis of the Use of Digital Health Technologies in Primary Health Care in the Sub-Saharan African Region: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become increasingly commonplace as a means of delivering primary care. While DHTs have been postulated to reduce inequalities, increase access, and strengthen health systems, how the implementation of DHTs has been realized in the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) health care environment remains inadequately explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to capture the multidisciplinary experiences of primary care professionals using DHTs to explore the strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats, regarding the implementation and use of DHTs in SSA primary care settings. METHODS: A combination of qualitative approaches was adopted (ie, focus groups and semistructured interviews). Participants were recruited through the African Forum for Primary Care and researchers' contact networks using convenience sampling and included if having experience with digital technologies in primary health care in SSA. Focus and interviews were conducted, respectively, in November 2021 and January-March 2022. Topic guides were used to cover relevant topics in the interviews, using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework. Transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using framework analysis to identify emerging themes. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was used to ensure the study met the recommended standards of qualitative data reporting. RESULTS: A total of 33 participants participated in the study (n=13 and n=23 in the interviews and in focus groups, respectively; n=3 participants participated in both). The strengths of using DHTs ranged from improving access to care, supporting the continuity of care, and increasing care satisfaction and trust to greater collaboration, enabling safer decision-making, and hastening progress toward universal health coverage. Weaknesses included poor digital literacy, health inequalities, lack of human resources, inadequate training, lack of basic infrastructure and equipment, and poor coordination when implementing DHTs. DHTs were perceived as an opportunity to improve patient digital literacy, increase equity, promote more patient-centric design in upcoming DHTs, streamline expenditure, and provide a means to learn international best practices. Threats identified include the lack of buy-in from both patients and providers, insufficient human resources and local capacity, inadequate governmental support, overly restrictive regulations, and a lack of focus on cybersecurity and data protection. CONCLUSIONS: The research highlights the complex challenges of implementing DHTs in the SSA context as a fast-moving health delivery modality, as well as the need for multistakeholder involvement. Future research should explore the nuances of these findings across different technologies and settings in the SSA region and implications on health and health care equity, capitalizing on mixed-methods research, including the use of real-world quantitative data to understand patient health needs. The promise of digital health will only be realized when informed by studies that incorporate patient perspective at every stage of the research cycle.

Perceptions of chief clinical information officers on the state of electronic health records systems interoperability in NHS England: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In the era of electronic health records (EHR), the ability to share clinical data is a key facilitator of healthcare delivery. Since the introduction of EHRs, this aspect has been extensively studied from the perspective of healthcare providers. Less often explored are the day-to-day challenges surrounding the procurement, deployment, maintenance, and use of interoperable EHR systems, from the perspective of healthcare administrators, such as chief clinical information officers (CCIOs). OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to capture the perceptions of CCIOs on the current state of EHR interoperability in the NHS, its impact on patient safety, the perceived facilitators and barriers to improving EHR interoperability, and what the future of EHR development in the NHS may entail. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2020 - October 2021. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit NHS England CCIOs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Fifteen CCIOs participated in the study. Participants reported that limited EHR interoperability contributed to the inability to easily access and transfer data into a unified source, thus resulting in data fragmentation. The resulting lack of clarity on patients' health status negatively impacts patient safety through suboptimal care coordination, duplication of efforts, and more defensive practice. Facilitators to improving interoperability included the recognition of the need by clinicians, patient expectations, and the inherent centralised nature of the NHS. Barriers included systems usability difficulties, and institutional, data management, and financial-related challenges. Looking ahead, participants acknowledged that realising that vision across the NHS would require a renewed focus on mandating data standards, user-centred design, greater patient involvement, and encouraging inter-organisational collaboration. CONCLUSION: Tackling poor interoperability will require solutions both at the technical level and in the wider policy context. This will involve demanding interoperability functionalities from the outset in procurement contracts, fostering greater inter-organisation cooperation on implementation strategies, and encouraging systems vendors to prioritise interoperability in their products. Only by comprehensively addressing these challenges would the full potential promised by the use of fully interoperable EHRs be realised.

The Impact of Electronic Health Record Interoperability on Safety and Quality of Care in High-Income Countries: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) and poor system interoperability are well-known issues in the use of health information technologies in most high-income countries worldwide. Despite the abundance of literature exploring their relationship, their practical implications on patient safety and quality of care remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine how EHR interoperability affects patient safety, or other dimensions of care quality, in high-income health care settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using 4 web-based medical journal repositories and grey literature sources. The publications included were published in English between 2010 and 2022, pertaining to EHR use, interoperability, and patient safety or care quality in high-income settings. Screening was completed by 3 researchers in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tools. The findings were presented as a narrative synthesis and mapped based on the Institute of Medicine's framework for health care quality. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria to be included in our review. The findings were categorized into 6 common outcome measure categories: patient safety events, medication safety, data accuracy and errors, care effectiveness, productivity, and cost savings. EHR interoperability positively influenced medication safety, reduced patient safety events, and reduced costs. Improvements in time saving and clinical workflow are mixed. However, true measures of effect are difficult to determine with certainty because of the heterogeneity in the outcome measures used and notable variation in study quality. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of EHR interoperability on the quality and safety of care remain unclear and reflect extensive heterogeneity in the interventions, designs, and outcome measures used. The establishment of common health information technology research outcome measures would support higher-quality research on the topic. Future research efforts should focus on both the positive and negative impacts of interoperable EHR interventions and explore patient perspectives, given the growing trend for patient involvement and stewardship over their own electronic clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209285; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209285. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044941.

Smart triage: triage and management of sepsis in children using the point-of-care Pediatric Rapid Sepsis Trigger (PRST) tool.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is the leading cause of death and disability in children. Every hour of delay in treatment is associated with an escalating risk of morbidity and mortality. The burden of sepsis is greatest in low- and middle-income countries where timely treatment may not occur due to delays in diagnosis and prioritization of critically ill children. To circumvent these challenges, we propose the development and clinical evaluation of a digital triage tool that will identify high risk children and reduce time to treatment. We will also implement and clinically validate a Radio-Frequency Identification system to automate tracking of patients. The mobile platform (mobile device and dashboard) and automated patient tracking system will create a low cost, highly scalable solution for critically ill children, including those with sepsis. METHODS: This is pre-post intervention study consisting of three phases. Phase I will be a baseline period where data is collected on key predictors and outcomes before implementation of the digital triage tool. In Phase I, there will be no changes to healthcare delivery processes in place at the study hospitals. Phase II will involve model derivation, technology development, and usability testing. Phase III will be the intervention period where data is collected on key predictors and outcomes after implementation of the digital triage tool. The primary outcome, time to treatment initiation, will be compared to assess effectiveness of the digital health intervention. DISCUSSION: Smart technology has the potential to overcome the barrier of limited clinical expertise in the identification of the child at risk. This mobile health platform, with sensors and data-driven applications, will provide real-time individualized risk prediction to rapidly triage patients and facilitate timely access to life-saving treatments for children in low- and middle-income countries, where specialists are not regularly available and deaths from sepsis are common. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT04304235, Registered 11 March 2020.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of coenzyme Q10 for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is a commonly measured risk factor for non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular adverse events such as heart attacks and strokes. Clinical trials have suggested that coenzyme Q10, a non-prescription nutritional supplement, can effectively lower blood pressure (BP). When this review was completed and published in October 2009, it concluded that "due to the possible unreliability of the 3 included studies, it is uncertain whether or not coenzyme Q10 reduces blood pressure in the long-term management of primary hypertension." OBJECTIVES: To determine the blood pressure lowering effect of coenzyme Q10 in primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (1946 to November 2015), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (accessed 10 November 2015), EMBASE (1974 to November 2015), Web of Science (1899 to November 2015), CINAHL (1970 to November 2015), and ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed 10 November 2015). We also searched reference lists of articles for relevant clinical trials in any language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials evaluating the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of coenzyme Q10 for a duration of at least three weeks, in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary author determined trial inclusion, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. The second author independently verified trial inclusion and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: In this update of the review, one new randomized, controlled cross-over trial with a total of 30 participants was added, and one trial included in the initial review was excluded. Only two of the three included trials were pooled in the meta-analysis, as one trial was judged to have an unacceptably high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis of two RCTs (50 participants), coenzyme Q10 did not significantly change systolic BP: -3.68 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.86 to 1.49), or diastolic BP: -2.03 mm Hg (95% CI -4.86 to 0.81] ), based on clinic data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 does not have a clinically significant effect on blood pressure. In one of three trials reporting adverse effects, coenzyme Q10 was well tolerated. Due to the small number of individuals and studies available for analysis, more well-conducted trials are needed.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.

Validating a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care: an international eDelphi study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed. AIM: To explore general practitioners' perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework's prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework's components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.

Smart triage: Development of a rapid pediatric triage algorithm for use in low-and-middle income countries.

Introduction: Early and accurate recognition of children at risk of progressing to critical illness could contribute to improved patient outcomes and resource allocation. In resource limited settings digital triage tools can support decision making and improve healthcare delivery. We developed a model for rapid identification of critically ill children at triage. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of acutely ill children presenting at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Eastern Uganda. Variables collected in the emergency department informed the development of a logistic model based on hospital admission using bootstrap stepwise regression. Low and high-risk thresholds for 90% minimum sensitivity and specificity, respectively generated three risk level categories. Performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on a held-out test set generated by an 80:20 split with 10-fold cross validation. A risk stratification table informed clinical interpretation. Results: The model derivation cohort included 1,612 participants, with an admission rate of approximately 23%. The majority of admitted patients were under five years old and presenting with sepsis, malaria, or pneumonia. A 9-predictor triage model was derived: logit (p) = -32.888 + (0.252, square root of age) + (0.016, heart rate) + (0.819, temperature) + (-0.022, mid-upper arm circumference) + (0.048 transformed oxygen saturation) + (1.793, parent concern) + (1.012, difficulty breathing) + (1.814, oedema) + (1.506, pallor). The model afforded good discrimination, calibration, and risk stratification at the selected thresholds of 8% and 40%. Conclusion: In a low income, pediatric population, we developed a nine variable triage model with high sensitivity and specificity to predict who should be admitted. The triage model can be integrated into any digital platform and used with minimal training to guide rapid identification of critically ill children at first contact. External validation and clinical implementation are in progress.

Digital maturity and its determinants in General Practice: A cross-sectional study in 20 countries.

Background: The extent to which digital technologies are employed to promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare is known as Digital Maturity. Individual and systemic digital maturity are both necessary to ensure a successful, scalable and sustainable digital transformation in healthcare. However, digital maturity in primary care has been scarcely evaluated. Objectives: This study assessed the digital maturity in General Practice (GP) globally and evaluated its association with participants' demographic characteristics, practice characteristics and features of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) use. Methods: GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. Demographic data, practice characteristics, and features of EHRs use were collected. Digital maturity was evaluated through a framework based on usage, resources and abilities (divided in this study in its collective and individual components), interoperability, general evaluation methods and impact of digital technologies. Each dimension was rated as 1 or 0. The digital maturity score was calculated as the sum of the six dimensions and ranged between 0 to 6 (maximum digital maturity). Multivariable linear regression was used to model the total score, while multivariable logistic regression was used to model the probability of meeting each dimension of the score. Results: One thousand six hundred GPs (61% female, 68% Europeans) participated. GPs had a median digital maturity of 4 (P25-P75: 3-5). Positive associations with digital maturity were found with: male gender [B = 0.18 (95% CI 0.01; 0.36)], use of EHRs for longer periods [B = 0.45 (95% CI 0.35; 0.54)] and higher frequencies of access to EHRs [B = 0.33 (95% CI 0.17; 0.48)]. Practicing in a rural setting was negatively associated with digital maturity [B = -0.25 (95%CI -0.43; -0.08)]. Usage (90%) was the most acknowledged dimension while interoperability (47%) and use of best practice general evaluation methods (28%) were the least. Shorter durations of EHRs use were negatively associated with all digital maturity dimensions (aOR from 0.09 to 0.77). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated notable factors that impact digital maturity and exposed discrepancies in digital transformation across healthcare settings. It provides guidance for policymakers to develop more efficacious interventions to hasten the digital transformation of General Practice.

General practitioners' perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international cross-sectional survey study.

With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June-September 2020. GPs' perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients' preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

Electronic Health Records, Interoperability and Patient Safety in Health Systems of High-income Countries: A Systematic Review Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The availability and routine use of electronic health records (EHRs) have become commonplace in healthcare systems of many high-income countries. While there is an ever-growing body of literature pertaining to their use, evidence surrounding the importance of EHR interoperability and its impact on patient safety remains less clear. There is, therefore, a need and opportunity to evaluate the evidence available regarding this relationship so as to better inform health informatics development and policies in the years to come. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of EHR interoperability on patient safety in health systems of high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review will be conducted via a computerised search through four databases: PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium and PsycInfo for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes of interest will include impact on patient safety and the broader effects on health systems. Quality of the randomised quantitative studies will be assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Non-randomised papers will be evaluated with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies-of Interventions tool. Drummond's Checklist will be used for publications pertaining to economic evaluation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist will be used to assess qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for included studies, and the body of evidence will be summarised in a summary of findings table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data and, thus, does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated through preprints, open access peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020209285.

Virtual primary care in high-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Policy responses and lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine, once defined merely as the treatment of certain conditions remotely, has now often been supplanted in use by broader terms such as 'virtual care', in recognition of its increasing capability to deliver a diverse range of healthcare services from afar. With the unexpected onset of COVID-19, virtual care (e.g. telephone, video, online) has become essential to facilitating the continuation of primary care globally. Over several short weeks, existing healthcare policies have adapted quickly and empowered clinicians to use digital means to fulfil a wide range of clinical responsibilities, which until then have required face-to-face consultations. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to explore the virtual care policies and guidance material published during the initial months of the pandemic and examine their potential limitations and impact on transforming the delivery of primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: A rapid review of publicly available national policies guiding the use of virtual care in General Practice was conducted. Documents were included if issued in the first six months of the pandemic (March to August of 2020) and focussed primarily on high-income countries. Documents must have been issued by a national health authority, accreditation body, or professional organisation, and directly refer to the delivery of primary care. RESULTS: We extracted six areas of relevance: primary care transformation during COVID-19, the continued delivery of preventative care, the delivery of acute care, remote triaging, funding & reimbursement, and security standards. CONCLUSION: Virtual care use in primary care saw a transformative change during the pandemic. However, despite the advances in the various governmental guidance offered, much work remains in addressing the shortcomings exposed during COVID-19 and strengthening viable policies to better incorporate novel technologies into the modern primary care clinical environment.

Role of point-of-care tests in the management of febrile children: a qualitative study of hospital-based doctors and nurses in England.

OBJECTIVES: The use of rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) has been advocated for improving patient management and outcomes and for optimising antibiotic prescribing. However, few studies have explored healthcare workers' views about their use in febrile children. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of hospital-based doctors and nurses regarding the use of POCTs in England. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth interviews with purposively selected hospital doctors and nurses. Data were analysed thematically. SETTING: Two university teaching hospitals in London and Newcastle. PARTICIPANTS: 24 participants (paediatricians, emergency department doctors, trainee paediatricians and nurses). RESULTS: There were diverse views about the use of POCTs in febrile children. The reported advantages included their ease of use and the rapid availability of results. They were seen to contribute to faster clinical decision-making; the targeting of antibiotic use; improvements in patient care, flow and monitoring; cohorting (ie, the physical clustering of hospitalised patients with the same infection to limit spread) and enhancing communication with parents. These advantages were less evident when the turnaround for results of laboratory tests was 1-2 hours. Factors such as clinical experience and specialty, as well as the availability of guidelines recommending POCT use, were also perceived as influential. However, in addition to their perceived inaccuracy, participants were concerned about POCTs not resolving diagnostic uncertainty or altering clinical management, leading to a commonly expressed preference for relying on clinical skills rather than test results solely. CONCLUSION: In this study conducted at two university teaching hospitals in England, participants expressed mixed opinions about the utility of current POCTs in the management of febrile children. Understanding the current clinical decision-making process and the specific needs and preferences of clinicians in different settings will be critical in ensuring the optimal design and deployment of current and future tests.

Evaluation of the quality of 'do not use' medication abbreviation audits: a key enabler to successful implementation of audit and feedback.

Background Hospital pharmacy audit and feedback of 'do not use' medication abbreviations improves patient safety. For audit and feedback systems to be effective, the data captured must be of high quality such that end-users trust the information to guide practice change. The quality of data captured during monthly standardized pharmacy 'do not use' abbreviation audits is currently unknown. Objective We aimed to assess pharmacy 'do not use' abbreviation audit data quality. Method Primary audit data quality was assessed by examining a random sample of handwritten medication prescriptions for the presence and type of 'do not use' abbreviations. This data was compared with the pharmacy monthly audit data to determine data capture agreement and consistency over time. Results There were 1132 prescriptions from July, October, and December 2019 included. Data capture agreement between the pharmacy audit and the secondary assessment using Cohen's Kappa ranged from 0.53 to 0.63. The primary audit under-reported 'do not use' abbreviation rates, however this did not vary over time (χ2 = 1.215, p = 0.545). Conclusion Pharmacy staff audits under-reported 'do not use' abbreviation rates, however this was consistent over time. The quality of pharmacy audits should be assessed and disseminated to end-users prior to implementing feedback.

Common data elements for predictors of pediatric sepsis: A framework to standardize data collection.

BACKGROUND: Standardized collection of predictors of pediatric sepsis has enormous potential to increase data compatibility across research studies. The Pediatric Sepsis Predictor Standardization Working Group collaborated to define common data elements for pediatric sepsis predictors at the point of triage to serve as a standardized framework for data collection in resource-limited settings. METHODS: A preliminary list of pediatric sepsis predictor variables was compiled through a systematic literature review and examination of global guideline documents. A 5-round modified Delphi that involved independent voting and active group discussions was conducted to select, standardize, and prioritize predictors. Considerations included the perceived predictive value of the candidate predictor at the point of triage, intra- and inter-rater measurement reliability, and the amount of time and material resources required to reliably collect the predictor in resource-limited settings. RESULTS: We generated 116 common data elements for implementation in future studies. Each common data element includes a standardized prompt, suggested response values, and prioritization as tier 1 (essential), tier 2 (important), or tier 3 (exploratory). Branching logic was added to the predictors list to facilitate the design of efficient data collection methods, such as low-cost electronic case report forms on a mobile application. The set of common data elements are freely available on the Pediatric Sepsis CoLab Dataverse and a web-based feedback survey is available through the Pediatric Sepsis CoLab. Updated iterations will continuously be released based on feedback from the pediatric sepsis research community and emergence of new information. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the common data elements in future studies can allow data sharing between studies and contribute to development of powerful risk prediction algorithms. These algorithms may then be used to support clinical decision making at triage in resource-limited settings. Continued collaboration, engagement, and feedback from the pediatric sepsis research community will be important to ensure the common data elements remain applicable across a broad range of geographical and sociocultural settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis protocol of the Smart Triage program: A point-of-care digital triage platform for pediatric sepsis in Eastern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a clinical syndrome characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection. Severe cases can have case fatality ratio 25% or higher in low-middle income countries, but early diagnosis and timely treatment have a proven benefit. The Smart Triage program in Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda will provide expedited sepsis treatment in children through a data-driven electronic patient triage system. To complement the ongoing Smart Triage interventional trial, we propose methods for a concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis of the Smart Triage platform. METHODS: We will use a decision-analytic model taking a societal perspective, combining government and out-of-pocket costs, as patients bear a sizeable portion of healthcare costs in Uganda due to the lack of universal health coverage. Previously published secondary data will be used to link healthcare utilization with costs and intermediate outcomes with mortality. We will model uncertainty via probabilistic sensitivity analysis and present findings at various willingness-to-pay thresholds using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. DISCUSSION: Our proposed analysis represents a first step in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an innovative digital triage platform designed to improve clinical outcomes in pediatric sepsis through expediting care in low-resource settings. Our use of a decision analytic model to link secondary costing data, incorporate post-discharge healthcare utilization, and model clinical endpoints is also novel in the pediatric sepsis triage literature for low-middle income countries. Our analysis, together with subsequent analyses modelling budget impact and scale up, will inform future modifications to the Smart Triage platform, as well as motivate scale-up to the district and national levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration of parent clinical trial: NCT04304235, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304235. Registered 11 March 2020.