Challenges and opportunities for general practice specific CME in Europe - a narrative review of seven countries.

BACKGROUND: Several changes have led to general practitioners (GPs) working in a more differentiated setting today and being supported by other health professions. As practice changes, primary care specific continuing medical education (CME) may also need to adapt. By comparing different primary care specific CME approaches for GPs across Europe, we aim at identifying challenges and opportunities for future development. METHODS: Narrative review assessing, analysing and comparing CME programs for general practitioners across different north-western European countries (UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Switzerland, and France). Templates containing detailed items across seven dimensions of country-specific CME were developed and used. These dimensions are role of primary care within the health system, legal regulations regarding CME, published aims of CME, actual content of CME, operationalisation, funding and sponsorship, and evaluation. RESULTS: General practice specific CME in the countries under consideration are presented and comparatively analysed based on the dimensions defined in advance. This shows that each of the countries examined has different strengths and weaknesses. A clear pioneer cannot be identified. Nevertheless, numerous impulses for optimising future GP training systems can be derived from the examples presented. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of country specific CME programs several fields of potential action were identified: the development of curriculum objectives for GPs, the promotion of innovative teaching and learning formats, the use of synergies in specialist GP training and CME, the creation of accessible yet comprehensive learning platforms, the establishment of clear rules for sponsorship, the development of new financing models, the promotion of fair competition between CME providers, and scientifically based evaluation.

Point-of-Care Testing for Pharyngitis in the Pharmacy.

Pharyngitis (also known as sore throat) is a common, predominately viral, self-limiting condition which can be symptomatically managed without antibiotic treatment. Inappropriate antibiotic use for pharyngitis contributes to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance. However, a small proportion of sore throats caused by group A streptococcal (GAS) infection may benefit from the provision of antibiotics. Establishing the cause of infection is therefore an important step in effective antibiotic stewardship. Point-of-care (POC) tests, where results are available within minutes, can distinguish between viral and GAS pharyngitis and can therefore guide treatment in primary healthcare settings such as community pharmacies, which are often the first point of contact with the healthcare system. In this opinion article, the evidence for the use of POC testing in the community pharmacy has been discussed. Evidence suggests that pharmacy POC testing can promote appropriate antibiotic use and reduce the need for general practitioner consultations. Challenges to implementation include cost, training and 'who prescribes', with country and regional differences presenting a particular issue. Despite these challenges, POC testing for pharyngitis has become widely available in pharmacies in some countries and may represent a strategy to contain antibiotic resistance and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

Topical (local) antibiotics for respiratory infections with sore throat: An antibiotic stewardship perspective.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially for viral, and self-limiting, respiratory tract infections such as sore throat, increases the risk of the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance within communities. Up to 80% of sore throat cases have a viral aetiology, and even when the infection is bacterial, most cases resolve without antibiotics. However, antibiotics are still frequently and often inappropriately prescribed for the treatment of sore throat. Furthermore, topical (local) antibiotics for treatment of sore throat are widely available over the counter. The objective of this systematic review was to establish the evidence for the benefits, risk of harm and antimicrobial resistance associated with topical (local) antibiotics used for patients with sore throat. METHODS: Eligible studies included those in patients with sore throat of any aetiology receiving the topical (local) antibiotics tyrothricin, bacitracin, gramicidin or neomycin where the antibiotic was topically/locally applied via the nasal cavity or throat. Nasal applications were included as these are occasionally used to treat upper respiratory tract infections that may involve sore throat. There was no restriction or requirement regarding comparator. The outcomes of interest included efficacy, safety, and in vitro culture and antimicrobial resistance data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This systematic review found sparse and mainly poor-quality evidence relating to the use of topical (local) antibiotics for sore throat, and it was not possible to establish the benefits, risk of harm or impact of use on antimicrobial resistance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to ascertain the risks and benefits of topical (local) antibiotics, their contribution to antimicrobial resistance and the risk of harm. We do, however, question whether it is appropriate and rational to use topical (local) antibiotics for the treatment of sore throat caused by respiratory tract infections in the absence of robust evidence.

Deprescribing: a primary care perspective.

Polypharmacy is an increasing and global issue affecting primary care. Although sometimes appropriate, polypharmacy can also be problematic, leading to a range of adverse consequences. Deprescribing is the process of supervised withdrawal of an inappropriate medication and has the potential to reduce some of the problems associated with polypharmacy. It is a complex and sensitive process. We examine the issue of deprescribing from the perspective of primary care. Key steps in the deprescribing process are a review of medications and corresponding indications, consideration of harms, assessment of eligibility for discontinuation, prioritisation of medications and implementation of a stopping plan with appropriate monitoring. Patient involvement is a key feature of this process. Deprescribing should be considered in the context of end-of-life care and medication safety, but approaches are also required to identify other situations where deprescribing is appropriate. General practitioners are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing, usually through formal medication review, with decisions informed by a range of other healthcare professionals. Guidelines are available that help guide these processes. A range of studies have explored attitudes towards deprescribing; patients are generally supportive of the concept, although clinician views are varied. The successful implementation of deprescribing strategies still requires important patient and clinician barriers to be overcome, and clinical trial evidence of effectiveness and safety is essential.

Improving medication management in multimorbidity: development of the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, affects over 60 % of patients in primary care. Due to its association with polypharmacy, the development of interventions to optimise medication management in patients with multimorbidity is a priority. The Behaviour Change Wheel is a new approach for applying behavioural theory to intervention development. Here, we describe how we have used results from a review of previous research, original research of our own and the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention to improve medication management in multimorbidity by general practitioners (GPs), within the overarching UK Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions. METHODS: Following the steps of the Behaviour Change Wheel, we sought behaviours associated with medication management in multimorbidity by conducting a systematic review and qualitative study with GPs. From the modifiable GP behaviours identified, we selected one and conducted a focused behavioural analysis to explain why GPs were or were not engaging in this behaviour. We used the behavioural analysis to determine the intervention functions, behavioural change techniques and implementation plan most likely to effect behavioural change. RESULTS: We identified numerous modifiable GP behaviours in the systematic review and qualitative study, from which active medication review (rather than passive maintaining the status quo) was chosen as the target behaviour. Behavioural analysis revealed GPs' capabilities, opportunities and motivations relating to active medication review. We combined the three intervention functions deemed most likely to effect behavioural change (enablement, environmental restructuring and incentivisation) to form the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention. MY COMRADE primarily involves the technique of social support: two GPs review the medications prescribed to a complex multimorbid patient together. Four other behavioural change techniques are incorporated: restructuring the social environment, prompts/cues, action planning and self-incentives. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention targeting multimorbidity and confirms the usability and usefulness of the approach in a complex area of clinical care. The systematic development of the MY COMRADE intervention will facilitate a thorough evaluation of its effectiveness in the next phase of this work.

More action, less resistance: report of the 2014 summit of the Global Respiratory Infection Partnership.

'Antimicrobial resistance is a global health security threat that requires concerted cross-sectional action by governments and society as a whole,' according to a report published by the WHO in April 2014([1]) . On 24-25 June 2014, the Global Respiratory Infection Partnership (GRIP) met in London, UK, together with delegates from 18 different countries to discuss practical steps that can be taken at a local level to address this global problem in an aligned approach. This was the second annual summit of GRIP. The group, formed in 2012, includes primary care and hospital physicians, microbiologists, researchers, and pharmacists from nine core countries. GRIP aims to unite healthcare professionals (HCPs) around the world to take action against inappropriate antibiotic use, focussing on one of the most prevalent therapy areas where antibiotics are inappropriately prescribed - upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Chaired by GRIP member, Professor John Oxford (UK), the 2014 summit included engaging presentations by guest speakers examining the latest science regarding the impact of inappropriate antibiotic use.

Achievement of cholesterol targets and prescribing of higher-cost statins: a cross-sectional study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence as to whether achievement of cholesterol targets at the population level is dependent on the choice and cost of statin. AIM: To investigate the practice-level relationship between cholesterol quality indicators in patients with heart disease, stroke, and diabetes and prescribing of low-cost statins. DESIGN AND SETTING: Correlations and linear regression modelling of retrospective cross-sectional practice-level data with potential explanatory variables in 7909 (96.4%) general practices in England in 2008-2009. METHOD: Quality indicator data were obtained from the Information Centre and prescribing data from the NHS Business Authority. A 'cholesterol quality indicator' score was constructed by dividing the numbers of patients achieving the target for cholesterol control of ≤5 mmol/l in stroke, diabetes, and heart disease by the numbers on each register. A 'low-cost statin' ratio score was constructed by dividing the numbers of defined daily doses of simvastatin and pravastatin by the total numbers of defined daily doses of statins. RESULTS: Simvastatin accounted for 83.3% (standard deviation [SD] = 15.7%) of low-cost statins prescribed and atorvastatin accounted for 85.7% (SD = 14.8%) of high-cost statins prescribed. The mean cholesterol score was 73.7% (SD = 6.0%). Practices using a higher proportion of the low-cost statins were less successful in achieving cholesterol targets. An increase of 10% in the prescribing of low-cost statins was associated with a decrease of 0.46% in the cholesterol quality indicator score (95% confidence interval = -0.54% to -0.38%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Greater use of low-cost statins was associated with a small reduction in cholesterol control.

Generic and therapeutic substitutions in the UK: are they a good thing?

There is considerable interest and debate concerning the place of generic substitution (switching from a brand to generic product); and on therapeutic substitution, that is, switching to a cheaper, but apparently equivalent, product, usually within the drug class. Generic substitution by pharmacists is standard practice in UK hospital settings, and is being proposed for implementation in primary care. Although most prescriptions are already written generically (83% in the community in England in 2008), there are still cost savings that could be made if generic medicines are substituted against prescriptions written by branded name or by getting prescribers to adhere to advice to prescribe generically. Therapeutic substitution is more contentious, as direct evidence to support equivalence is normally lacking. However, the price differential between established drugs whose patents have expired and for which generics are available and newer, branded medicines within the same therapeutic class, makes therapeutic substitution an attractive application of cost-minimization analysis for the more efficient use of healthcare resources. Here we explore the tension that exists between the clinical appropriateness and safety of switching from an individual patient perspective and the consideration of value for money which is required to maximize population health from a health service perspective. Although substitution may affect individual patients (such as, for instance, reduced adherence, increased potential for medication error), it might be a price worth paying given the opportunity cost associated with the use of medicines that are clinically no better than cheaper alternatives.