Getting health services right for 16-25 year-olds.

The 2019 NHS England Long Term Plan set out the ambition to work across the 0-25 age range to support children and young people as they make the transition to early adulthood. Within this broad age bracket, how do we ensure we get health services right for 16-25 year-olds including the transfer to adult services? In this paper, we explore the evidence supporting youth-friendly and developmentally appropriate healthcare approaches and what these mean in practice for young people and healthcare professionals. Examples from primary and secondary care, as well as the perspectives of a young person, illustrate the challenges and solutions.

Observations from a teaching hospital in Ireland: changing from MDRD to CKD-EPI eGFR in routine practice.

Estimates of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) help assess kidney function. Estimated GFR can be used to classify patients into one of six Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) categories as recommended by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes clinical practice guidelines; CKD1 ≥90, CKD2 60-89, CKD3a 45-59, CKD3b 30-44, CKD4 15-29 or CKD5 ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m2 The Modification of Diet and Renal Disease (MDRD) study formula was widely adopted to calculate eGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula improved accuracy of CKD staging at eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 MDRD and CKD-EPI eGFR were calculated on 111 444 serum creatinine results from adult patients measured as part of the routine Clinical Chemistry service. Application of CKD-EPI eGFR reclassified 18% to a lower (13.9%) or higher (4.0%) CKD stage. CKD staging was lower when <65 years and higher when ≥65 years. Females were more often reclassified compared with males (2.6% vs 0.8%). Overall, CKD-EPI eGFR classified less with CKD (stages 3a-5), unless ≥75 years. Older males and inpatients had higher CKD stages when CKD-EPI eGFR was applied. It has been recommended to replace MDRD eGFR with CKD-EPI eGFR. In general, doing this will have little impact, however, for some patients their CKD classification will be different.

A patient and family reporting system for perceived ambulatory note mistakes: experience at 3 U.S. healthcare centers.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to test a patient and family online reporting system for perceived ambulatory visit note inaccuracies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We implemented a patient and family electronic reporting system at 3 U.S. healthcare centers: a northeast urban academic adult medical center (AD), a northeast urban academic pediatric medical center (PED), and a southeast nonprofit hospital network (NET). Patients and families reported potential documentation inaccuracies after reading primary care and subspecialty visit notes. Results were characterized using descriptive statistics and coded for clinical relevance. RESULTS: We received 1440 patient and family reports (780 AD, 402 PED, and 258 NET), and 27% of the reports identified a potential inaccuracy (25% AD, 35% PED, 28% NET). Among these, patients and families indicated that the potential inaccuracy was important or very important in 58% of reports (55% AD, 55% PED, 71% NET). The most common types of potential inaccuracies included description of symptoms (21%), past medical problems (21%), medications (18%), and important information that was missing (15%). Most patient- and family-reported inaccuracies resulted in a change to care or to the medical record (55% AD, 67% PED, data not available at NET). DISCUSSION: About one-quarter of patients and families using an online reporting system identified potential documentation inaccuracies in visit notes and more than half were considered important by patients and clinicians, underscoring the potential role of patients and families as ambulatory safety partners. CONCLUSIONS: Partnering with patients and families to obtain reports on inaccuracies in visit notes may contribute to safer care. Mechanisms to encourage greater use of patient and family reporting systems are needed.

Awareness of Racial Disparities in Diabetes Among Primary Care Residents and Preparedness to Discuss Disparities with Patients.

Many healthcare providers lack the awareness of health disparities among their patients that precedes action to improve outcomes. Limited health disparities training is a probable contributor. We assessed primary care residents' awareness of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes, their perceived preparedness to discuss health disparities with patients, and their preferences for training and resources to improve their preparedness. Primary care residents (n = 98) affiliated with two teaching hospitals in North Carolina were invited to complete a 20-question health disparities survey. Fifty-two residents completed the survey (response rate = 53%). Most were non-Hispanic White (54%) and had ≤ 50% African American patients in their panel (65%). Although 83% were aware of higher diabetes prevalence among African Americans, only 31% felt prepared to discuss diabetes health disparities with patients. Their primary concerns included not having information for the discussion (58%) and being unsure how to share information in a way that is easy for patients to understand (48%). Perceived preparedness to discuss health disparities did not differ significantly by primary care resident race or percentage of African American patients in their panel. Residents indicated that having information regarding how to discuss and address health disparities would make them feel more prepared. Cultural competency training and experiential learning were the most preferred methods to learn how to identify and address health disparities. Future health disparities training should focus on improving residents' preparedness to address health disparities in their clinical practice using culturally relevant communication tools and experiential learning opportunities.

Not a magic pill: a qualitative exploration of provider perspectives on antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics poses an urgent public health threat. Limited research has examined factors associated with antibiotic prescribing practices in outpatient settings. The goals of this study were to explore elements influencing provider decisions to prescribe antibiotics, identify provider recommendations for interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, and inform the clinical management of patients in the outpatient environment for infections that do not require antibiotics. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Seventeen outpatient providers (10 medical doctors and 7 advanced care practitioners) within a large healthcare system in Charlotte, North Carolina, participated. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Primary barriers to reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing included patient education and expectations, system-level factors, and time constraints. Providers indicated they would be interested in having system-wide, evidence-based guidelines to inform their prescribing decisions and that they would also be receptive to efforts to improve their awareness of their own prescribing practices. Results further suggested that providers experience a high demand for antibiotic prescriptions; consequently, patient education around appropriate use would be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient setting is influenced by many pressures, including patient demand and patient satisfaction. Training on appropriate antibiotic prescribing, guideline-based decision support, feedback on prescribing practices, and patient education are recommended interventions to improve levels of appropriate prescribing.

Exploring Patient Awareness and Perceptions of the Appropriate Use of Antibiotics: A Mixed-Methods Study.

In the outpatient setting, estimates suggest that 30% of the antibiotics prescribed are unnecessary. This study explores patient knowledge and awareness of appropriate use of antibiotics and expectations regarding how antibiotics are used for their treatment in outpatient settings. A survey was administered to a convenience sample of patients, parents, and caregivers (n = 190) at seven primary care clinics and two urgent care locations. Fisher's exact tests compared results by patient characteristics. Although 89% of patients correctly believed that antibiotics work well for treating infections from bacteria, 53% incorrectly believed that antibiotics work well for treating viral infections. Patients who incorrectly believed that antibiotics work well for treating viral infections were more than twice as likely to expect a provider to give them an antibiotic when they have a cough or common cold. Patients who completed the survey also participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 4), which were analyzed using thematic analysis. Patients reported experiencing confusion about which illnesses may be treated by antibiotics and unclear communication from clinicians about the appropriate use of antibiotics. Development of easy to understand patient educational materials can help address patients' incorrect perceptions of appropriate antibiotic use and facilitate patient-provider communication.