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.

General practice perspective on the use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia using an Action Research approach: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Telehealth has emerged as a viable and safe mode of care delivery in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, electronic general practice data reveal differences in uptake and consultation mode, which we hypothesise may be due to potential barriers impacting on quality of care. We aimed to identify the benefits and barriers of telehealth use in general practice, using an 'Action Research' approach involving general practitioners (GPs) and general practice stakeholders. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group performed within a broader Action Research methodology. SETTING: A focus group was held in August 2021, with general practice participants from Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: The study consisted of a purposive sample of 11 participants, including GPs (n=4), representatives from three primary health networks (n=4) and data custodian representatives (n=3) who were part of a project stakeholder group guided by an Action Research approach. METHODS: Semistructured interview questions were used to guide focus group discussions via videoconference, which were recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. The transcript was analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Emerging themes included evolution of telehealth, barriers to telehealth (privacy, eligibility, technology, quality of care, sociodemographic and residential aged care barriers) and benefits of telehealth (practice, quality of care, sociodemographic and residential aged care benefits). CONCLUSION: The findings highlight a range of barriers to telehealth that impact general practice, but also provide justification for the continuation and development of telehealth. These results provide important context to support data-driven population-based findings on telehealth uptake. They also highlight areas of quality improvement for the enhancement of telehealth as a valuable tool for routine general practice patient care.

Telehealth use in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australian general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Australian government introduced temporary government-subsidised telehealth service items (phone and video-conference) in mid-March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The uptake of telehealth by patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) for consulting with GPs is unknown. AIM: To evaluate the uptake of telehealth consultations and associated patient characteristics in Australian general practice, including the frequency of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests and change in HbA1c levels by telehealth use, compared with guideline recommendations. DESIGN & SETTING: This exploratory study used electronic patient data from approximately 800 general practices in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW), Australia. A pre-COVID-19 period from March 2019-February 2020 was compared with a pandemic period from March 2020-February 2021. Patients diagnosed with T2DM before March 2018 were included. METHOD: Telehealth uptake patterns were examined overall and by patient characteristics. Generalised estimating equation models were used to examine patient probability of 6-monthly HbA1c testing and change in HbA1c levels, comparing between patients who did and patients who did not use telehealth. RESULTS: Of 57 916 patients, 80.8% had telehealth consultations during the pandemic period. Telehealth consultations were positively associated with patients with T2DM who were older, female, had chronic kidney disease (CKD), prescribed antidiabetic medications, and living in remote areas. No significant difference was found in 6-monthly HbA1c testing and HbA1c levels between telehealth users and patients who had face-to-face consultations only. CONCLUSION: Telehealth GP consultations were well utilised by patients with T2DM. Diabetes monitoring care via telehealth is as effective as face-to-face consultations.

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.

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.