Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescr...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context. / Hurley, Ruth; Jury, Francine; van Staa, Tjeerd P. et al.
In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 23, 367, 14.04.2023.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hurley R, Jury F, van Staa TP, Palin V, Armitage CJ. Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context. BMC Health Services Research. 2023 Apr 14;23:367. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09239-4

Author

Bibtex

@article{f0d199f879684bdcaef67827b01ee405,
title = "Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context",
abstract = "Background Overprescribing of antibiotics is a major concern as it contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Research has found highly variable antibiotic prescribing in (UK) primary care, and to support more effective stewardship, the BRIT Project (Building Rapid Interventions to optimise prescribing) is implementing an eHealth Knowledge Support System. This will provide unique individualised analytics information to clinicians and patients at the point of care. The objective of the current study was to gauge the acceptability of the system to prescribing healthcare professionals and highlight factors to maximise intervention uptake. Methods Two mixed-method co-design workshops were held online with primary care prescribing healthcare professionals (n = 16). Usefulness ratings of example features were collected using online polls and online whiteboards. Verbal discussion and textual comments were analysed thematically using inductive (participant-centred) and deductive perspectives (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). Results Hierarchical thematic coding generated three overarching themes relevant to intervention use and development. Clinician concerns (focal issues) were safe prescribing, accessible information, autonomy, avoiding duplication, technical issues and time. Requirements were ease and efficiency of use, integration of systems, patient-centeredness, personalisation, and training. Important features of the system included extraction of pertinent information from patient records (such as antibiotic prescribing history), recommended actions, personalised treatment, risk indicators and electronic patient communication leaflets. Anticipated acceptability and intention to use the knowledge support system was moderate to high. Time was identified as a focal cost/ burden, but this would be outweighed if the system improved patient outcomes and increased prescribing confidence. Conclusion Clinicians anticipate that an eHealth knowledge support system will be a useful and acceptable way to optimise antibiotic prescribing at the point of care. The mixed method workshop highlighted issues to assist person-centred eHealth intervention development, such as the value of communicating patient outcomes. Important features were identified including the ability to efficiently extract and summarise pertinent information from the patient records, provide explainable and transparent risk information, and personalised information to support patient communication. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability enabled structured, theoretically sound feedback and creation of a profile to benchmark future evaluations. This may encourage a consistent user-focused approach to guide future eHealth intervention development. ",
author = "Ruth Hurley and Francine Jury and {van Staa}, {Tjeerd P.} and Victoria Palin and Armitage, {Christopher J.}",
year = "2023",
month = apr,
day = "14",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-023-09239-4",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BMC",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care

T2 - a mixed-method evaluation of features and context

AU - Hurley, Ruth

AU - Jury, Francine

AU - van Staa, Tjeerd P.

AU - Palin, Victoria

AU - Armitage, Christopher J.

PY - 2023/4/14

Y1 - 2023/4/14

N2 - Background Overprescribing of antibiotics is a major concern as it contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Research has found highly variable antibiotic prescribing in (UK) primary care, and to support more effective stewardship, the BRIT Project (Building Rapid Interventions to optimise prescribing) is implementing an eHealth Knowledge Support System. This will provide unique individualised analytics information to clinicians and patients at the point of care. The objective of the current study was to gauge the acceptability of the system to prescribing healthcare professionals and highlight factors to maximise intervention uptake. Methods Two mixed-method co-design workshops were held online with primary care prescribing healthcare professionals (n = 16). Usefulness ratings of example features were collected using online polls and online whiteboards. Verbal discussion and textual comments were analysed thematically using inductive (participant-centred) and deductive perspectives (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). Results Hierarchical thematic coding generated three overarching themes relevant to intervention use and development. Clinician concerns (focal issues) were safe prescribing, accessible information, autonomy, avoiding duplication, technical issues and time. Requirements were ease and efficiency of use, integration of systems, patient-centeredness, personalisation, and training. Important features of the system included extraction of pertinent information from patient records (such as antibiotic prescribing history), recommended actions, personalised treatment, risk indicators and electronic patient communication leaflets. Anticipated acceptability and intention to use the knowledge support system was moderate to high. Time was identified as a focal cost/ burden, but this would be outweighed if the system improved patient outcomes and increased prescribing confidence. Conclusion Clinicians anticipate that an eHealth knowledge support system will be a useful and acceptable way to optimise antibiotic prescribing at the point of care. The mixed method workshop highlighted issues to assist person-centred eHealth intervention development, such as the value of communicating patient outcomes. Important features were identified including the ability to efficiently extract and summarise pertinent information from the patient records, provide explainable and transparent risk information, and personalised information to support patient communication. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability enabled structured, theoretically sound feedback and creation of a profile to benchmark future evaluations. This may encourage a consistent user-focused approach to guide future eHealth intervention development.

AB - Background Overprescribing of antibiotics is a major concern as it contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Research has found highly variable antibiotic prescribing in (UK) primary care, and to support more effective stewardship, the BRIT Project (Building Rapid Interventions to optimise prescribing) is implementing an eHealth Knowledge Support System. This will provide unique individualised analytics information to clinicians and patients at the point of care. The objective of the current study was to gauge the acceptability of the system to prescribing healthcare professionals and highlight factors to maximise intervention uptake. Methods Two mixed-method co-design workshops were held online with primary care prescribing healthcare professionals (n = 16). Usefulness ratings of example features were collected using online polls and online whiteboards. Verbal discussion and textual comments were analysed thematically using inductive (participant-centred) and deductive perspectives (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). Results Hierarchical thematic coding generated three overarching themes relevant to intervention use and development. Clinician concerns (focal issues) were safe prescribing, accessible information, autonomy, avoiding duplication, technical issues and time. Requirements were ease and efficiency of use, integration of systems, patient-centeredness, personalisation, and training. Important features of the system included extraction of pertinent information from patient records (such as antibiotic prescribing history), recommended actions, personalised treatment, risk indicators and electronic patient communication leaflets. Anticipated acceptability and intention to use the knowledge support system was moderate to high. Time was identified as a focal cost/ burden, but this would be outweighed if the system improved patient outcomes and increased prescribing confidence. Conclusion Clinicians anticipate that an eHealth knowledge support system will be a useful and acceptable way to optimise antibiotic prescribing at the point of care. The mixed method workshop highlighted issues to assist person-centred eHealth intervention development, such as the value of communicating patient outcomes. Important features were identified including the ability to efficiently extract and summarise pertinent information from the patient records, provide explainable and transparent risk information, and personalised information to support patient communication. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability enabled structured, theoretically sound feedback and creation of a profile to benchmark future evaluations. This may encourage a consistent user-focused approach to guide future eHealth intervention development.

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-023-09239-4

DO - 10.1186/s12913-023-09239-4

M3 - Journal article

VL - 23

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

M1 - 367

ER -