BackgroundInterventions are needed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Although community antibiotic prescribing appears to be decreasing in the UK, figures for out-of-hours (OOH) prescribing have substantially increased. Understanding the factors influencing prescribing in OOH and any perceived differences between general practitioner (GP) and nurse prescriber (NP) prescribing habits may enable the development of tailored interventions promoting optimal prescribing in this setting.ObjectivesTo explore UK GP and NP views on and experiences of prescribing antibiotics for RTIs in primary care OOH services.MethodsThirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and NPs working in primary care OOH services. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse data.ResultsThe research shows that factors particular to OOH influence antibiotic prescribing, including a lack of patient follow-up, access to patient GP records, consultation time, working contracts and implementation of feedback, audit and supervision. NPs reported perceptions of greater accountability for their prescribing compared with GPs and reported they had longer consultations during which they were able to discuss decisions with patients. Participants agreed that more complex cases should be seen by GPs and highlighted the importance of consistency of decision making, illness explanations to patients as well as a perception that differences in clinical training influence communication with patients and antibiotic prescribing decisions.ConclusionsEnvironmental and social factors in OOH services and a mixed healthcare workforce provide unique influences on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs, which would need to be considered in tailoring interventions that promote prudent antibiotic prescribing in OOH services.
ObjectiveTo explore parents’ perspectives, concerns and experiences of the management of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children in primary care.DesignQualitative semistructured interview study.SettingUK primary care.Participants23 parents of children aged 6 months to 10 years presenting with LRTI in primary care.MethodThematic analysis of semistructured interviews (either in person or by telephone) conducted with parents to explore their experiences and views on their children being prescribed antibiotics for LRTI.ResultsFour major themes were identified and these are perspectives on: (1) infection, (2) antibiotic use, (3) the general practitioner (GP) appointment and (4) decision making around prescribing. Symptomatic relief was a key concern: the most troublesome symptoms were cough, breathing difficulty, fever and malaise. Many parents were reluctant to use self-care medication, tended to support antibiotic use and believed they are effective for symptoms, illness duration and for preventing complications. However, parental expectations varied from a desire for reassurance and advice to an explicit preference for an antibiotic prescription. These preferences were shaped by: (1) the age of the child, with younger children perceived as more vulnerable because of their greater difficulty in communicating, and concerns about rapid deterioration; (2) the perceived severity of the illness; and (3) disruption to daily routine. When there was disagreement with the GP, parents described feeling dismissed, and they were critical of inconsistent prescribing when they reconsult. When agreement between the parent and the doctor featured, parents described a feeling of relief and legitimation for consulting, feeling reassured that the illness did indeed warrant a doctor’s attention.ConclusionSymptomatic relief is a major concern for parents. Careful exploration of expectations, and eliciting worries about key symptoms and impact on daily life will be needed to help parents understand when a no antibiotic recommendation or delayed antibiotic recommendation is made.
ObjectivesTo explore understandings and concerns surrounding allergy, food intolerances and their potential impact on eczema among parents and carers of children with eczema who had posted messages in online forums.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review for active UK-based discussion forums that did not require password/registration to view posts and identified two parenting discussion forums with high activity and frequent use. We used their internal search functions to identify and export discussion threads relating to allergy and allergy testing for eczema from 2011 to 2016. We carried out an inductive thematic analysis of the 120 exported discussion threads.Results246 pages of text were analysed. Analysis led to three main themes: (1) confusion over the language surrounding ‘allergy’ and ‘intolerance’; (2) diverse beliefs about allergy testing in relation to eczema and (3) parents’ frustrations with perceptions of health professionals as uninterested and unhelpful about allergy testing. Forum users were concerned about immediate and delayed-type allergies but showed confusion in how terms were used, as well as different approaches to testing. Parents sought experiences of others, seeking social support as well as practical guidance.ConclusionsThe confusion around allergy-related terminology and its possible relationship with eczema means that it is essential healthcare professionals are able to signpost parents to accurate, accessible information. The lack of consistent information currently available means parents may use online discussion forums as an important source of information. This study suggests that the confused nature of discussions on these forums is inaccurate at best, and detrimental at worst.
ObjectiveAcutely unwell patients in the primary care setting are uncommon, but their successful management requires involvement from staff (clinical and non-clinical) working as a cohesive team. Despite the advantages of interprofessional education being well documented, there is little research evidence of this within primary care. Enhancing interprofessional working could ultimately improve care of the acutely ill patient. This proof of concept study aimed to develop an in situ simulation of a medical emergency to use within primary care, and assess its acceptability and utility through participants’ reported experiences.SettingThree research-active General Practices in south east England. Nine staff members per practice consented to participate, representing clinical and non-clinical professions.MethodsThe intervention of an in situ simulation scenario of a cardiac arrest was developed by the research team. For the evaluation, staff participated in individual qualitative semistructured interviews following the in situ simulation: these focused on their experiences of participating, with particular attention on interdisciplinary training and potential future developments of the in situ simulation.ResultsThe in situ simulation was appropriate for use within the participating General Practices. Qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews identified four themes: (1) apprehension and (un)willing participation, (2) reflection on the simulation design, (3) experiences of the scenario and (4) training.ConclusionsThis study suggests in situ simulation can be an acceptable approach for interdisciplinary team training within primary care, being well-received by practices and staff. This contributes to a fuller understanding of how in situ simulation can benefit both workforce and patients. Future research is needed to further refine the in situ simulation training session.
ObjectiveTo explore the experience and perceptions of illness, the decision to consult a general practitioner and the use of self-management approaches for chronic or recurrent sinusitis.DesignQualitative semistructured interview study.SettingUK primary care.Participants32 participants who had been participating in the ‘SNIFS’ (Steam inhalation and Nasal Irrigation For recurrent Sinusitis) trial in the South of England.MethodThematic analysis of semistructured telephone interviews.ResultsParticipants often reported dramatic impact on both activities and their quality of life. Participants were aware of both antibiotic side effects and resistance, but if they had previously been prescribed antibiotics, many patients believed that they would be necessary for the future treatment of sinusitis. Participants used self-help treatments for short and limited periods of time only. In the context of the trial, steam inhalation used for recurrent sinusitis was described as acceptable but is seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation was viewed as acceptable and beneficial by more patients. However, some participants reported that they would not use the treatment again due to the uncomfortable side effects they experienced, which outweighed any symptom relief, which may have resulted had they continued.ConclusionsSteam inhalation is acceptable but seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation is generally acceptable and beneficial for symptoms, but detailed information on the correct procedure and potential benefits of persisting may increase acceptability and adherence in those patients who find it uncomfortable.Trial registration numberISRCTN 88204146.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.