COVID-19: protocol for observational studies utilizing near real-time electronic Australian general practice data to promote effective care and best-practice policy-a design thinking approach.

BACKGROUND: Health systems around the world have been forced to make choices about how to prioritize care, manage infection control and maintain reserve capacity for future disease outbreaks. Primary healthcare has moved into the front line as COVID-19 testing transitions from hospitals to multiple providers, where tracking testing behaviours can be fragmented and delayed. Pooled general practice data are a valuable resource which can be used to inform population and individual care decision-making. This project aims to examine the feasibility of using near real-time electronic general practice data to promote effective care and best-practice policy. METHODS: The project will utilize a design thinking approach involving all collaborators (primary health networks [PHNs], general practices, consumer groups, researchers, and digital health developers, pathology professionals) to enhance the development of meaningful and translational project outcomes. The project will be based on a series of observational studies utilizing near real-time electronic general practice data from a secure and comprehensive digital health platform [POpulation Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) general practice data warehouse]. The study will be carried out over 1.5 years (July 2020-December 2021) using data from over 450 general practices within three Victorian PHNs and Gippsland PHN, Eastern Melbourne PHN and South Eastern Melbourne PHN, supplemented by data from consenting general practices from two PHNs in New South Wales, Central and Eastern Sydney PHN and South Western Sydney PHN. DISCUSSION: The project will be developed using a design thinking approach, leading to the building of a meaningful near real-time COVID-19 geospatial reporting framework and dashboard for decision-makers at community, state and nationwide levels, to identify and monitor emerging trends and the impact of interventions/policy decisions. This will integrate timely evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic related to its diagnosis and treatment, and its impact across clinical, population and general practice levels.

A framework for conducting policy-relevant primary care research: a COVID-19 case study in Australia.

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, and the ensuing implementation of response measures directly impacted the delivery of Australian primary care services. Understanding how these measures affected practice activity is important for gauging both their effectiveness and implications for future service planning. During the first 2years of the COVID-19 pandemic, a research project was undertaken to determine the impact of the pandemic on Australian general practice activity as a collaborative undertaking between researchers, general practitioners, data custodians, and five primary health networks from New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. The project methodology was based on an established research approach called action research, which involves participatory involvement from key stakeholders throughout the research process. The strength and success of the project's methodological approach stemmed from the synergistic interrelationship between the four key elements of: collaboration, repeated action research cycles (utilising electronic general practice data), engaged governance, and the production and dissemination of apposite knowledge outcomes. The project approach, knowledge outputs and lessons learned can be adapted to future research undertakings across any primary care setting and highlight the utility of action research and interdisciplinary research collaboration to produce knowledge directly relevant to clinical practice.

Medication prescribing in face-to-face versus telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australian general practice: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: There has been a precipitous rise in telehealth use in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding differences between face-to-face and telehealth consulting is an important component for planning the future use of telehealth services beyond the pandemic. However, there is limited evidence on whether telehealth consulting impacts medication prescribing under pandemic circumstances. AIM: To compare medication prescribing in face-to-face consultations with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australian general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: A multisite, retrospective observational study. De-identified routinely collected electronic health data were used, which were extracted from 806 general practices in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between April and December 2020. METHOD: The primary outcome measure was whether at least one medication was prescribed following a telehealth or face-to-face consultation. Data were reported by medication and for each of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system level 1 groups. The secondary outcome measure was first-time prescribing. Telehealth included both telephone and video consultations. RESULTS: A total of 13 608 216 consultations satisfied the inclusion criteria (61.0% face to face and 39.0% telehealth). Most telehealth consultations were conducted via telephone (97.8%). Overall, 39.3% of face-to-face and 33.0% of telehealth consultations prescribed at least one medication, which is a statistically significant difference (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.379 to 1.381). The prescribing rate was greater for face-to-face versus telehealth consultations for all drug groups except ATC level 1N (nervous system). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19 restrictions in the states of Victoria and NSW, Australia, medication prescribing was higher in face-to-face consultations when compared with telehealth consultations in the study population.

Telehealth-based diagnostic testing in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020, health technologies have been rapidly scaled up to ensure access to care. A significant innovation has been telehealth in general practice. Now widespread, it remains unknown how this shift to virtual care has impacted on quality-of-care indicators such as pathology testing and diagnosis. AIM: To undertake a comparison of telehealth and face-to-face general practice consultations to: identify if there were differences in the proportion of pathology test referrals from 2019-2020; and quantify any change in pathology test collection and follow-up patterns. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective observational study of routinely collected electronic patient data from 807 general practices across New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. METHOD: Multivariate generalised estimating equation models were used to estimate the proportion of pathology test referrals for overall, face-to-face, and telehealth consultations. Pathology test follow-up was described through median (and interquartile range [IQR]) time. RESULTS: Pathology test referrals declined during periods of high COVID-19 cases, falling from 10.8% in February 2020 to a low of 4.5% during the first peak in April. Overall, pathology test referrals were lower for telehealth than face-to-face consultations. Median time between referral and test collection was 3 days (IQR 1-14) for telehealth and 1 day (IQR 0-7) for face to face. CONCLUSION: For telehealth to become part of routine care, it is crucial that gaps in functionality, including difficulty in test referral processes, be addressed. Quality improvements supporting care practices will ensure clinicians' workflows are supported and patients receive diagnostic testing.