Person-centred medicine in the care home setting: development of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred medicine is recommended in the care of older patients. Yet, involvement of care home residents and relatives in medication processes remains limited in routine care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a complex intervention focusing on resident and relative involvement and interprofessional communication to support person-centred medicine in the care home setting. METHODS: The development took place from October 2021 to March 2022 in the Municipality of Aarhus, Denmark. The study followed the Medical Research Council guidance on complex intervention development using a combination of theoretical, evidence-based, and partnership approaches. The patient involvement tool, the PREparation of Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR), was included in a preliminary intervention model. Study activities included developing programme theory, engaging stakeholders, and exploring key uncertainties through interviews, co-producing workshops, and testing with end-users to develop the intervention and an implementation strategy. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model were used. Data were analysed using a rapid analysis approach. RESULTS: Before the workshops, six residents and four relatives were interviewed. Based on their feedback, PREPAIR was modified to the PREPAIR care home to fit the care home population. In total, ten persons participated in the co-producing workshops, including health care professionals and municipal managerial and quality improvement staff. The developed intervention prototype was tested for three residents and subsequently refined to the final intervention, including two fixed components (PREPAIR care home and an interprofessional medication communication template) delivered in a flexible three-stage workflow. Additionally, a multi-component implementation strategy was formed. In line with the developed programme theory, the intervention supported health care professionals´ awareness about resident and relative involvement. It provided a structure for involvement, empowered the residents to speak, and brought new insights through dialogue, thereby supporting involvement in medication-related decisions. The final intervention was perceived to be relevant, acceptable, and feasible in the care home setting. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the final intervention may be a viable approach to facilitate person-centred medicine through resident and relative involvement. This will be further explored in a planned feasibility study.

Point-of-care testing and antibiotics prescribing in out-of-hours general practice: a register-based study in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing may reduce diagnostic uncertainty in case of suspicion of bacterial infection, thereby contributing to prudent antibiotic prescribing. We aimed to study variations in the use of point-of-care tests (C-reactive protein test, rapid streptococcal antigen detection test, and urine dipstick) among general practitioners (GPs) and the potential association between point-of-care testing and antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours general practice. METHODS: We conducted a population-based observational register-based study, based on patient contacts with out-of-hours general practice in the Central Denmark Region in 2014-2017. The tendency of GPs to use point-of-care testing was calculated, and the association between the use of point-of-care testing and antibiotic prescribing was evaluated with the use of binomial regression. RESULTS: Out-of-hours general practice conducted 794,220 clinic consultations from 2014 to 2017, of which 16.1% resulted in an antibiotic prescription. The GP variation in the use of point-of-care testing was largest for C-reactive protein tests, with an observed variation (p90/p10 ratio) of 3.0; this means that the GPs in the 90th percentile used C-reactive protein tests three times as often as the GPs in the 10th percentile. The observed variation was 2.1 for rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests and 1.9 for urine dipsticks. The GPs who tended to use more point-of-care tests prescribed significantly more antibiotics than the GPs who tended to use fewer point-of-care tests. The GPs in the upper quintile of the tendency to use C-reactive protein test prescribed 22% more antibiotics than the GPs in the lowest quintile (21% for rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests and 8% for urine dipsticks). Up through the quintiles, this effect exhibited a positive linear dose-response correlation. CONCLUSION: The GPs varied in use of point-of-care testing. The GPs who tended to perform more point-of-care testing prescribed more antibiotics compared with the GPs who tended to perform fewer of these tests.