Costing of an Australian general practice COVID-19 drive-through testing and respiratory clinic.

BACKGROUND: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic requires safe and efficient testing on a large scale over a prolonged period. Outpatient testing facilities can clinically assess and test symptomatic individuals and test asymptomatic contacts. This study identified the resources required to establish and maintain an Australian general practitioner (GP) led testing facility that combined a respiratory clinic for clinical assessment and testing with a drive-through testing facility. METHODS: Data were taken from clinic administrative records to identify the number of patients tested over the period April-June 2020. An independent auditor's report identified the resources used in establishing, running, and staffing both clinics for the same period. Analyses were performed using the minimum and maximum daily throughput to understand the effect of demand on price per sample collected. RESULTS: The respiratory clinic tested an average of 19 patients per day, at an estimated cost of $340.04 AUD. This varied to $687.99 AUD during the lowest demand scenario, and $281.04 AUD during the high demand scenario. The drive-through clinic tested an average of 47 patients per day, at an estimated cost of $153.57 AUD. This varied to $279.51 AUD during the lowest demand scenario, and $99.92 AUD during the high demand scenario. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the cost of testing at a drive through and respiratory clinic in Australia. The evidence highlights importance of considering variation in demand and the impact on efficiency, particularly where resource use is fixed in the short term.

Towards optimising chronic kidney disease detection and management in primary care: Underlying theory and protocol for technology development using an Integrated Knowledge Translation approach.

Worldwide, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), directly or indirectly, causes more than 2.4 million deaths annually with symptoms generally presenting late in the disease course. Clinical guidelines support the early identification and treatment of CKD to delay progression and improve clinical outcomes. This paper reports the protocol for the codesign, implementation and evaluation of a technological platform called Future Health Today (FHT), a software program that aims to optimise early detection and management of CKD in general practice. FHT aims to optimise clinical decision making and reduce practice variation by translating evidence into practice in real time and as a part of quality improvement activities. This protocol describes the co-design and plans for implementation and evaluation of FHT in two general practices invited to test the prototype over 12 months. Service design thinking has informed the design phase and mixed methods will evaluate outcomes following implementation of FHT. Through systematic application of co-design with service users, clinicians and digital technologists, FHT attempts to avoid the pitfalls of past studies that have failed to accommodate the complex requirements and dynamics that can arise between researchers and service users and improve chronic disease management through use of health information technology.

Future Health Today: codesign of an electronic chronic disease quality improvement tool for use in general practice using a service design approach.

OBJECTIVE: To codesign an electronic chronic disease quality improvement tool for use in general practice. DESIGN: Service design employing codesign strategies. SETTING: General practice. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen staff (general practitioners, nurses and practice managers) from general practice in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria and five patients from metropolitan Melbourne. INTERVENTIONS: Codesign sessions with general practice staff, using a service design approach, were conducted to explore key design criteria and functionality of the audit and feedback and clinical decision support tools. Think aloud interviews were conducted in which participants articulated their thoughts of the resulting Future Health Today (FHT) prototype as they used it. One codesign session was held with patients. Using inductive and deductive coding, content and thematic analyses explored the development of a new technological platform and factors influencing implementation of the platform. RESULTS: Participants identified that the prototype needed to work within their existing workflow to facilitate automated patient recall and track patients with or at-risk of specific conditions. It needed to be simple, provide visual snapshots of information and easy access to relevant guidelines and facilitate quality improvement activities. Successful implementation may be supported by: accuracy of the algorithms in FHT and data held in the practice; the platform supporting planned and spontaneous interactions with patients; the ability to hide tools; links to Medicare Benefits Schedule; and prefilled management plans. Participating patients supported the use of the platform in general practice. They suggested that use of the platform demonstrates a high level of patient care and could increase patient confidence in health practitioners. CONCLUSION: Study participants worked together to design a platform that is clear, simple, accurate and useful and that sits within any given general practice setting. The resulting FHT platform is currently being piloted in general practices and will continue to be refined based on user feedback.

Preparing the public for COVID-19 vaccines: How can general practitioners build vaccine confidence and optimise uptake for themselves and their patients?

BACKGROUND: The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine is being heralded as the solution to control the current COVID-19 pandemic, reduce the number of infections and deaths and facilitate resumption of our previous way of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide a framework for primary care of what will be needed to optimise COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake in Australia once the vaccine prioritisation schedule and key target groups are known. DISCUSSION: While a number of vaccines are currently under development, with at least seven undergoing phase III trials (28 August 2020), it is hoped that an effective COVID-19 vaccine will become available to the public in 2021. Ensuring public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness will be crucial to facilitate uptake. General practitioners are at the forefront of public health, and one of the most trusted sources for patients. In this article, the authors discuss the expedited vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines; the likely vaccine prioritisation schedule and anticipated key target groups; the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination acceptance, including the work required to facilitate this; and the implications for general practice.

How do general practitioners access guidelines and utilise electronic medical records to make clinical decisions on antibiotic use? Results from an Australian qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how general practitioners (GPs) access and use both guidelines and electronic medical records (EMRs) to assist in clinical decision-making when prescribing antibiotics in Australia. DESIGN: This is an exploratory qualitative study with thematic analysis interpreted using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) framework. SETTING: This study was conducted in general practice in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six GPs from five general practices were recruited to participate in five focus groups between February and April 2018. RESULTS: GPs expressed that current EMR systems do not provide clinical decision support to assist with antibiotic prescribing. Access and use of guidelines were variable. GPs who had more clinical experience were less likely to access guidelines than younger and less experienced GPs. Guideline use and guideline-concordant prescribing was facilitated if there was a practice culture encouraging evidence-based practice. However, a lack of access to guidelines and perceived patients' expectation and demand for antibiotics were barriers to guideline-concordant prescribing. Furthermore, guidelines that were easy to access and navigate, free, embedded within EMRs and fit into the clinical workflow were seen as likely to enhance guideline use. CONCLUSIONS: Current barriers to the use of antibiotic guidelines include GPs' experience, patient factors, practice culture, and ease of access and cost of guidelines. To reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and to promote more rational use of antibiotic in the community, guidelines should be made available, accessible and easy to use, with minimal cost to practicing GPs. Integration of evidence-based antibiotic guidelines within the EMR in the form of a clinical decision support tool could optimise guideline use and increase guideline-concordant prescribing.

Why do we not want to recommend influenza vaccination to young children? A qualitative study of Australian parents and primary care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza vaccination has been shown to be safe and effective against influenza and in the prevention of complicating secondary respiratory illnesses. However, its uptake in young children remains low. This study explored the views, attitudes and practices of parents and primary care providers (PCPs) on their knowledge and acceptance of influenza vaccination in children under 5. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional qualitative research design, we conducted 30 in-depth interviews with PCPs (i.e., general practitioners, practice nurses, maternal and child health nurses, and pharmacists) and five focus groups with parents (n = 50) between June 2014 and July 2015 in Melbourne, Australia. Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Parents thought the vaccine could cause influenza, and influenza vaccination was not necessary for their children as they needed to build their own 'immunity'. Parents said that they would consider vaccinating their children if recommended by their GP and if the influenza vaccine was part of the immunisation schedule. PCPs also expressed concerns regarding the efficacy of the vaccine as well as out-of-pocket costs incurred by families, and uncertainty regarding the mortality and morbidity of influenza in otherwise healthy children. However, they said they would recommend the vaccine to high-risk groups (e.g. children with chronic disease(s), and asthma). CONCLUSION: Despite the established safety of influenza vaccines, barriers to uptake include concerns regarding the iatrogenic effects of vaccination, its administration schedule, and knowledge of influenza severity. Updated information on influenza and the efficacy of the vaccine, and incorporating influenza vaccination into the immunisation schedule may overcome some of these barriers to increase influenza vaccination in this vulnerable cohort.