ABSTRACT
General practice is at the forefront of the National Health Service, but is currently being overwhelmed by ever-increasing patient demand and financial constraints. Telephone consultations (TCs) have been used as a method to ease pressure on general practice. Many of these consultations are booked with general practioners (GPs), despite occasions when the patient could have either been signposted to self-help or offered an alternative service. This quality improvement project (QIP) aimed to evaluate the nature of TCs undertaken by GPs at our two practices; and whether the patients' needs could have adequately been met without the involvement of a GP. Consultations where this was the case were deemed 'possibly avoidable', and those where involvement with a GP was the best option have been termed 'essential'. A retrospective analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline figure for the proportion of possibly avoidable TCs in two practices. A new intervention was then introduced, with reception staff following a set of protocols when booking in patients. Patients who did not require a GP to deal with their query were actively signposted by reception staff to other allied healthcare professionals, non-medical staff or an alternative service at the time of booking their appointment. Two practices were involved in the study. After 2 Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles, the proportion of essential consultations taking place at both practices increased from 28.6% and 27.3% at baseline, to 82.6% and 71.4%, respectively. A lower number of possibly avoidable TCs equates to more time for essential TCs and greater value for money for the practice. Patient access to care is also improved, with patients directed to alternative and often quicker services which still meet their needs adequately. With the current system of primary care unable to cope with the demands it faces, interventions such as active signposting provide value for both GP practices and patients alike.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Daily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is increasingly used in intensive care units to prevent hospital-associated infections, but limited evidence exists for noncritical care settings. METHODS: A prospective crossover study was conducted on 4 medical inpatient units in an urban, academic Canadian hospital from May 1, 2014-August 10, 2015. Intervention units used CHG over a 7-month period, including a 1-month wash-in phase, while control units used nonmedicated soap and water bathing. Rates of hospital-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) colonization or infection were the primary end point. Hospital-associated S. aureus were investigated for CHG resistance with a qacA/B and smr polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and agar dilution. RESULTS: Compliance with daily CHG bathing was 58%. Hospital-associated MRSA and VRE was decreased by 55% (5.1 vs 11.4 cases per 10,000 inpatient days, P = .04) and 36% (23.2 vs 36.0 cases per 10,000 inpatient days, P = .03), respectively, compared with control cohorts. There was no significant difference in rates of hospital-associated Clostridium difficile. Chlorhexidine resistance testing identified 1 isolate with an elevated minimum inhibitory concentration (8 µg/mL), but it was PCR negative. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective pragmatic study to assess daily bathing for CHG on inpatient medical units was effective in reducing hospital-associated MRSA and VRE. A critical component of CHG bathing on medical units is sustained and appropriate application, which can be a challenge to accurately assess and needs to be considered before systematic implementation.
