Process evaluation of a point-of-care cluster randomised trial using a computer-delivered intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is an increasingly serious threat to global public health and patient safety. Overuse of antibiotics has aggravated this issue. Around 7% of all antibiotics in Scotland are prescribed by dentists. Audit and feedback has been shown to decrease these prescriptions, but there is evidence that dentists still prescribe unnecessarily. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness of a theory-informed in-practice training session (TiPTAP) in addition to individualised audit and feedback, with audit and feedback alone for reducing antibiotic prescribing by NHS dentists working in NHS primary care dental practices. Methods We will conduct a 2-arm parallel cluster randomised trial: out of 228 practices, 114 will be randomised to the theory-informed in-practice training session targeting antibiotic prescribing and individualised audit and feedback; 114 practices will be randomised to audit and feedback alone. The theory-informed session will include (a) an introductory session including several behaviour change techniques; (b) problem solving discussion, setting and recording action plans; (c) practice-level prescribing feedback discussion. The primary outcome is the number of antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims over a 1-year period post-randomisation for each dentist. Secondary outcomes are the number of amoxicillin 3 g and broad spectrum antibiotics prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims over a 1-year period; amoxicillin 3 g and broad spectrum antibiotics defined daily doses of antibiotics per 100 claims. Process measures include fidelity, knowledge, and confidence. Primary and secondary outcomes will be obtained using routine data. Discussion This study provides the opportunity to robustly assess the effect of adding an in-practice training co-intervention to audit and feedback. Its behaviour change theory-informed content will allow replication of the different components and can inform future training interventions. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN12345678. Registered 18 June 2020.

Download Full-text

Barriers to a software reminder system for risk assessment of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial in general practice

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp18x699809 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 68 (677) ◽

pp. e844-e851

Author(s):

Tim A Holt ◽

Andrew RH Dalton ◽

Susan Kirkpatrick ◽

Jenny Hislop ◽

Tom Marshall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

General Practice ◽

Process Evaluation ◽

Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Qualitative Interviews ◽

Randomised Trial ◽

Software Tool ◽

Cluster Randomised Trial ◽

Cluster Randomised

BackgroundOral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but are underused. AURAS-AF (AUtomated Risk Assessment for Stroke in AF) is a software tool designed to identify eligible patients and promote discussions within consultations about initiating anticoagulants.AimTo investigate the implementation of the software in UK general practice.Design and settingProcess evaluation involving 23 practices randomly allocated to use AURAS-AF during a cluster randomised trial.MethodAn initial invitation to discuss anticoagulation was followed by screen reminders appearing during consultations until a decision had been made. The reminders required responses, giving reasons for cases where an anticoagulant was not initiated. Qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients explored acceptability and usability.ResultsIn a sample of 476 patients eligible for the invitation letter, only 159 (33.4%) were considered suitable for invitation by their GPs. Reasons given were frequently based on frailty, and risk of falls or haemorrhage. Of those invited, 35 (22%) started an anticoagulant (7.4% of those originally identified). A total of 1695 main-screen reminders occurred in 940 patients. In 883 instances, the decision was taken not to initiate and a range of reasons offered. Interviews with 15 patients and seven clinicians indicated that the intervention was acceptable, though the issue of disruptive screen reminders was raised.ConclusionAutomated risk assessment for stroke in atrial fibrillation and prompting during consultations are feasible and generally acceptable, but did not overcome concerns about frailty and risk of haemorrhage as barriers to anticoagulant uptake.

Download Full-text