A snapshot of noncommunicable disease profiles and their prescription costs at ten primary healthcare facilities in the in the western half of the Cape Town Metropole

Improving primary care antimicrobial stewardship by implementing a peer audit and feedback intervention in Cape Town community healthcare centres

BACKGROUND

The increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health. Primary care, where 80% of antibiotics are consumed, is a pivotal setting to direct antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts. However, the ideal model to improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care in low-resource settings is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To implement a multidisciplinary audit and feedback AMS intervention with the aim to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing at primary care level.

METHODS

The intervention was implemented and monitored in 10 primary care centres of the Cape Town metropole between July 2017 and June 2019. The primary and secondary outcome measures were monthly adherence to a bundle of antibiotic quality process measures and monthly antibiotic consumption, respectively. Multidisciplinary audit and feedback meetings were initiated and integrated into facility clinical meetings. Two Excel tools were utilised to automatically calculate facility audit scores and consumption. Once a month, 10 antibiotic prescriptions were randomly selected for a peer review audit by the team. The prescriptions were audited for adherence to a bundle of seven antibiotic process measures using the standard treatment guidelines (STG) and Essential Medicines List (EML) as standard. Concurrently, primary care pharmacists monitored monthly antibiotic consumption by calculating defined daily doses (DDDs) per 100 prescriptions dispensed. Adherence and consumption feedback were regularly provided to the facilities. Learning collaboratives involving representative multidisciplinary teams were held twice-yearly. Pre-, baseline and post-intervention periods were defined as 6 months before, first 6 months and last 6 months of the study, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean overall adherence increased from 19% (baseline) to 47% (post intervention) (p<0.001). Of the 2 077 prescriptions analysed, 33.7% had an antibiotic prescribed inappropriately. No diagnosis had been captured in patient notes, and the antibiotic chosen was not according to the STG and EML in 30.1% and 31.7% of cases, respectively. Seasonal variation was observed in prescribing adherence, with significantly lower adherence in winter and spring months (adjusted odds ratio 0.60). A reduction of 12.9 DDDs between the pre- and post-intervention periods (p=0.0084) was documented, which represented a 19.3% decrease in antibiotic consumption.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that peer reviewed audit and feedback is an effective AMS intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care in a low-resource setting. The intervention, utilising existing resources and involving multidisciplinary engagement, may be incorporated into existing quality improvement processes at facility level, to ensure sustainable change.

Measuring the impact of community-based interventions on type 2 diabetes control during the COVID-19 pandemic in Cape Town – A mixed methods study

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Systematic review on the instruments used for measuring the association of the level of multimorbidity and clinically important outcomes

OBJECTIVES

There are multiple instruments for measuring multimorbidity. The main objective of this systematic review was to provide a list of instruments that are suitable for use in studies aiming to measure the association of a specific outcome with different levels of multimorbidity as the main independent variable in community-dwelling individuals. The secondary objective was to provide details of the requirements, strengths and limitations of these instruments, and the chosen outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018105297). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases published in English and manually searched the Journal of Comorbidity between 1 January 2010 and 23 October 2020 inclusive. Studies also had to select adult patients from primary care or general population and had at least one specified outcome variable. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts independently. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Ninety-six studies were identified, with 69 of them rated to have a low risk of bias. In total, 33 unique instruments were described. Disease Count and weighted indices like Charlson Comorbidity Index were commonly used. Other approaches included pharmaceutical-based instruments. Disease Count was the common instrument used for measuring all three essential core outcomes of multimorbidity research: mortality, mental health and quality of life. There was a rise in the development of novel weighted indices by using prognostic models. The data obtained for measuring multimorbidity were from sources including medical records, patient self-reports and large administrative databases.

CONCLUSIONS

We listed the details of 33 instruments for measuring the level of multimorbidity as a resource for investigators interested in the measurement of multimorbidity for its association with or prediction of a specific outcome.

Development and validation of a tool to measure patient experience in chronic disease care

BACKGROUND

 There is a global increase in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and a growing understanding that patients need to be involved in their care. Patient experience should be assessed and the information used to improve on the planning and delivery of health services.

AIM

 This study described the development and validation of a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) tool which is appropriate for the South African context, to assess self-reported patient experience of chronic care.

SETTING

 The study was conducted at four primary health care facilities in the Cape Town Metropole.

METHODS

 This was a validity and reliability study with multiple phases to develop and determine the psychometric properties of a novel tool. It consisted of three phases, namely: Phase 1 - Consensus Validity; Phase 2 - Face Validity; Phase 3 - Reliability. Phase 1 consisted of an expert panel reaching consensus on a draft tool. Phase 2a consisted of qualitative semi-structured interviews and cognitive interviews. Phase 3 tested the internal consistency of the tool, the time necessary to complete, as well as floor and ceiling effects with 200 questionnaires.

RESULTS

 The process described resulted in a final questionnaire with n = 10 items in three languages that was easily understood by patients. Internal consistency was determined with the overall Cronbach's alpha 0.86. This PREM has been named Chronic Care Assessment of Patient Experience.

CONCLUSION

 Using best practice guidance in tool construction and validation, we delivered a PREM with the potential to improve the quality of care from the perspective of patients. Implementation studies are now required to determine how best to use this tool in routine practice.

Western Cape Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) study: Measuring primary care organisation and performance in the Western Cape Province, South Africa (2013)

BACKGROUND

Major health sector reform and the need for baseline measures of performance to determine impact.

AIM

Baseline audit of primary healthcare (PHC) performance.

SETTING

Cape Town and Cape Winelands (rural) PHC facilities (PCFs) in Western Cape Province, South Africa.

METHOD

The South African cross-culturally validated ZA PCAT to audit PHC performance on 11 subdomains associated with improved health and reduced costs. Adult PCF users systematically sampled. All full-time doctors and nurse practitioners in PCFs sampled and all PCF managers in sub-districts sampled invited into the study.

RESULTS

Data from 1432 users, 100 clinicians and 64 managers from 13 PCFs in 10 sub-districts analysed (figures show stakeholder percentages scoring subdomain performance 'acceptable to good'). 11.5% users scored access 'acceptable to good'; community orientation and comprehensive services provided 20.8% and 39.9%, respectively. Total PHC score for users 50.2%; for managers and practitioners 82.8% and 88.0%, respectively. Among practitioners access was lowest (33.3%); PHC team (98.0%) and comprehensive services available (100.0%) highest. Among managers, access (13.5%) and family centredness (45.6%) are lowest; PHC team (85.9%) and comprehensive services available (90.6%) highest. Managers scored access, family centredness and cultural competence significantly lower than practitioners. Users scored comprehensive services available, comprehensive services provided and community orientation significantly lower than practitioners and managers.

CONCLUSION

Gaps between users' experience and providers' assessments of PHC performance are identified. Features that need strengthening and alignment with best practice, provincial and national, and health policies are highlighted with implications for practitioner and manager training, health policy, and research.