| 1. |
- Schwartz, K. L., et al.
(author)
-
Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN)
- 2023
-
In: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. - 2047-2994. ; 12:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundPrimary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A & F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A & F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A & F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.ObjectiveTo develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A & F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A & F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement.ResultsThe final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5).ConclusionWe report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A & F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A & F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.
|
|
| 2. |
- Michalsen, B. O., et al.
(author)
-
Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN)
- 2023
-
In: Jac-Antimicrobial Resistance. - 2632-1823. ; 5:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings. Objectives and methods To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information. Results Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability. Conclusions The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.
|
|
| 3. |
- Squires, Janet E., et al.
(author)
-
The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare
- 2023
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - 1478-4505. ; 21:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background There is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.Methods We conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.Results In the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.Conclusions The Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.
|
|
