Behavioural determinants shaping infection prevention and control behaviour among healthcare workers in Dutch general practices: a qualitative study reflecting on pre-, during and post-COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, awareness of infection prevention and control (IPC) has increased in primary care settings. This study aimed to examine behavioural determinants shaping IPC behaviour pre-, during, and post-pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) in general practices, to inform optimised IPC in primary care. METHODS: For this qualitative study, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted during two study periods: (1) pre-COVID-19 pandemic: July 2019-February 2020, with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and medical assistants, and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic: July 2022-February 2023, with 22 GPs and medical assistants. The design was informed by behaviour change theories. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Main themes were: (1) risk perception and IPC awareness, (2) attitudes towards IPC and professional responsibility, (3) decision-making process and risk considerations for IPC adherence, (4) social norm and social influence in GP practice team, and (5) environmental context and resource availability in GP practice. During the pandemic, risk perception and awareness of the importance of IPC increased compared to the pre-pandemic period. A consistent belief emerged that IPC is part of professional responsibility, while needing to be balanced with other aspects of patient care. Decision-making is dependent on the individual GP and mainly influenced by risk assessments and sustainability considerations. The social context in the practice team can reinforce IPC behaviours. GP practice building and layout, and limited IPC resource and material availability were reported as main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The theory-informed insights of this study can be used for targeted interventions to optimise IPC behaviour in general practices. Adopting multifaceted strategies to target the various determinants is recommended to sustain IPC, by implementing continuous education using tailored communication, integrating IPC in work routines and organisational workflows, refining existing IPC protocols by incorporating decision-making tools for HCWs, fostering a culture of IPC through knowledge-sharing and teamwork, and addressing GP practice physical environment and IPC resource barriers.

Qualitative study on shared decision making in cystitis management in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Cystitis is commonly treated with antibiotics, although non-antibiotic options could be considered for healthy non-pregnant women. Shared decision making (SDM) can be used in cystitis management to discuss the various treatment options but is not frequently applied in general practice. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators for applying SDM in cystitis management in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative explorative research in general practice with healthcare professionals (HCPs; GPs and GP assistants) and healthy non-pregnant women with a recent history of cystitis (patients). METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and October 2022. We applied a combination of thematic and framework analysis. RESULTS: Ten GPs, seven GP assistants, and 15 patients were interviewed. We identified the following three main barriers and one key facilitator: (1) applying SDM is deemed inefficient; (2) HCPs assume that patients expect antibiotic treatment and some HCPs consider non-antibiotic treatment inferior; (3) patients are largely unaware of the various non-antibiotic treatment options for cystitis; and (4) HCPs recognise some benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management, including reduced antibiotic use and improved patient empowerment, and patients appreciate involvement in treatment decisions, but preferences for SDM vary. CONCLUSION: SDM is infrequently applied in cystitis treatment in general practice owing to the current focus on efficient cystitis management that omits patient contact, HCPs' perceptions, and patient unawareness. Nevertheless, both HCPs and patients recognise the long-term benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management. Our findings facilitate the development of tailored interventions to increase the application of SDM, which should be co-created with HCPs and patients, and fit into the current efficient cystitis management.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for hospital admission in COVID-19 patients presenting to primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP). OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort. RESULTS: In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept -0.08, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation). CONCLUSION: We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.

A general practice prediction model based on signs and symptoms of COVID-19 patients reliably predicted hospitalisation.The model performed well in second-wave data with other dominant variants and changed testing and vaccination policies.In an emerging pandemic, GP data can be leveraged to develop prognostic models for decision support and to predict hospitalisation rates.

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026).

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients: a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation.

BACKGROUND: Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs. AIM: To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020. METHOD: Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71-86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged >65 years; temperature >38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate >110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation. CONCLUSION: Based on this study's GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters.

Parents' knowledge, attitudes, and practice in childhood fever: an internet-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Fever in children is common and mostly caused by self-limiting infections. However, the number of (re)consultations in primary care is high, driven by lack of knowledge and fear among parents. These drivers have only been studied in parents when consulting with their sick child. AIM: To study knowledge, attitudes, and practice in childhood fever in parents within the general population. DESIGN AND SETTING: Internet-based survey of a sample of 1000 parents from the general population of the Netherlands. METHOD: A 26-item cross-sectional survey was conducted of parents with one or more children aged < 5 years. RESULTS: Of 625 responders (average age 34.9 years), 63.4% and 43.7% indicated ever visiting their GP or GP's out-of-hours centre with a febrile child, respectively: 88.3% knew the definition of fever (>38°C), 55.2% correctly stated that antibiotics are effective in treating bacterial infections and not viral infections, and 72.0% knew that not every child with a fever needs treatment with antibiotics or paracetamol. When asked to prioritise aspects of a GP's consultation, 53.6% considered physical examination as most important. Obtaining a prescription for antibiotics or antipyretics was considered least important. CONCLUSION: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning childhood fever varied among parents with young children. Parents generally expect thorough physical examination and information, but not a prescription for medication (antibiotics or antipyretics) when consulting with a feverish child. GPs must be aware of these expectations as these provide opportunities to enhance consultations in general and prescription strategies in particular.