Identification of hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines and availability of training for chronic viral hepatitis among health professionals in six European countries: results of a semi-quantitative survey

Training the healthcare workforce to support task-shifting and viral hepatitis elimination: a global review of English language online trainings and in-person workshops for management of hepatitis B and C infection

BACKGROUND

Achieving World Health Organization (WHO) targets for viral hepatitis elimination will require simplification and decentralisation of care, supported through task-shifting and training of non-specialist frontline healthcare workers. To inform development of national health worker trainings in viral hepatitis, we review and summarise available online and workshop trainings for management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, conference abstracts, and grey literature using Google to identify online and in-person workshop trainings for health workers focused on HBV and/or HCV. Additional trainings were identified through a WHO regional network. We included online trainings written in English and in-person workshops developed for low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Available curricula are summarised together with key operational features (e.g. training length, year developed/updated, developing institution) and programmatic features (e.g. content, mechanism for self-assessment, use of clinical case studies).

RESULTS

A total of 30 trainings met our inclusion criteria (10 online trainings; 20 in-person workshops). 50% covered both HBV and HCV, 13% HBV alone and 37% HCV alone. Among online trainings, only 2 (20%) were specifically developed or adapted for LMICs; 70% covered all aspects of hepatitis care, including prevention, assessment, and treatment; 9 (90%) included guidance on when to refer to specialists, and 6 (60%) included modules on management in specific populations (e.g., people who inject drugs [PWID], prisoners, and children). Online trainings used different formats including text-based modules, narrated slide-sets, and interactive web-based modules. Most workshops (95%) were targeted towards non-specialty providers, and 50% were an integral part of a national strategy for viral hepatitis elimination. Workshop length ranged from several hours to multiple sessions over the course of months, and many were part of a blended educational model, which included other opportunities for ongoing learning (e.g., telementorship).

CONCLUSION

This compendium of online and in-person workshop trainings for HBV and HCV is a useful resource for national hepatitis programmes developing training curricula for non-specialists. Additional online training curricula are needed for use in LMICs, and additional materials are needed to address management challenges in key populations, such as PWID.

Training the healthcare workforce: the global experience with telementorship for hepatitis B and hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Telementorship has emerged as an innovative strategy to decentralise medical knowledge and increase healthcare capacity across a wide range of disease processes. We report the global experience with telementorship to support healthcare workers delivering hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) care and treatment.

METHODS

In early 2020, we conducted a survey of HBV and HCV telementorship programmes, followed by an in-depth interview with programme leads. Programmes were eligible to participate if they were located outside of the United States (U.S.), focused on support to healthcare workers in management of HBV and/or HCV, and were affiliated with or maintained adherence to the Project ECHO model, a telementorship programme pioneered at the University of New Mexico. One programme in the U.S., focused on HCV treatment in the Native American community, was purposively sampled and invited to participate. Surveys were administered online, and all qualitative interviews were performed remotely. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses, and qualitative interviews were assessed for major themes.

RESULTS

Eleven of 18 eligible programmes completed the survey and follow up interview. Sixty-four percent of programmes were located at regional academic medical centers. The majority of programmes (64%) were led by hepatologists. Most programmes (82%) addressed both HBV and HCV, and the remainder focused on HCV only. The median number of participating clinical spoke sites per programme was 22, and most spoke site participants were primary care providers. Most ECHO sessions were held monthly (36%) or bimonthly (27%), with sessions ranging from 45 min to 2 h in length. Programme leaders identified collective learning, empowerment and collaboration to be key strengths of their telementorship programme, while insufficient funding and a lack of protected time for telementorship leaders and participants were identified as major barriers to success.

CONCLUSION

The Project ECHO model for telementorship can be successfully implemented across high and low-and-middle-income countries to improve provider knowledge and experience in management of viral hepatitis. There is a tremendous opportunity to further expand upon the existing experience with telementorship to support non-specialist healthcare workers and promote elimination of viral hepatitis.

A Quality Improvement Project: Implementation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Guidelines at an Addiction Treatment Center

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project was introduced at an addiction treatment center to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment guidelines and offer anticraving medications to patients to improve standards of care of patients with substance use disorders.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Patients with opioid use disorders are at the highest risk of contracting HCV. More than 80% of people in the United States with opioid use disorders who use intravenous drugs have contracted HCV. Despite the high prevalence of HCV, patients at treatment centers are being screened only for HCV antibodies (HCV-AB) and are not receiving the CDC's HCV treatment guidelines. The CDC has treatment recommendations of hepatitis panels, full STD testing, and early follow-up care.

METHOD

This quality improvement project utilized the Plan-Do-Study-Act tool. With the application of Plan-Do-Study-Act, for patients identified with HCV-AB, the established CDC HCV treatment guidelines were followed, and the clinical progress of the implementation of the guidelines was monitored. Chart reviews comparing compliance of guidelines before and after the study were implemented.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 125 patients were collected, and of these, 32 patients were found to be HCV-AB+.

FINDINGS

The findings revealed that 18.75% of patients followed the CDC's HCV recommendations after the quality improvement project compared with 6.25% of patients before the intervention. The number of HIV testing offered increased by 40.00% as a result of the implementation of the project.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Hepatitis B and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Guidelines Among Trainees: A Tale of Three Centers

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B (HBV), the leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide, disproportionately affects minorities in the USA. Undiagnosed HBV precludes HCC screening and contributes to late-stage cancer presentation and decreased survival. Barriers to HBV and HCC screening include lack of insurance and limited diffusion of guidelines. We aimed to assess knowledge about HBV and HCC screening indications and explore barriers to screening.

METHODS

We surveyed trainees from the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospitals, Palmetto General Hospital, and Mount Sinai Medical Center. We assessed knowledge using clinical vignettes. We performed bivariate and Chi-squared analyses.

RESULTS

There were 183 respondents; median age was 31 and 52% were male. The sample was 35% Hispanic, 29% White, 18% Asian, and 9% Black. Training department was Internal Medicine, 71%; Family Medicine, 11%; Infectious Diseases, 6%; or Gastroenterology, 7%. Only 59% correctly estimated national HBV prevalence; 25% correctly estimated global prevalence. In vignettes with behavioral risk factors, trainees correctly advised screening, 63-96%. However, when the risk factor was the birthplace, correct responses ranged from 33 to 53%. Overall, 45% chose an incorrect combination of HBV screening tests. Perceived barriers to screening included limited expertise in screening of immigrants and limited patient education. Respondents were more likely to recommend HCC screening in cirrhotic patients versus non-cirrhotic HBV patients. Key barriers to HCC screening included uncertainty about HCC guidelines and patient financial barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of HBV and HCC screening recommendations is suboptimal among trainees. Efforts to broadly disseminate HBV and HCC guidelines through targeted educational interventions are needed.

Language support for linguistic minority chronic hepatitis B/C patients: an exploratory study of availability and clinicians' perceptions of language barriers in six European countries

Background

Language support for linguistic minorities can improve patient safety, clinical outcomes and the quality of health care. Most chronic hepatitis B/C infections in Europe are detected among people born in endemic countries mostly in Africa, Asia and Central/Eastern Europe, groups that may experience language barriers when accessing health care services in their host countries. We investigated availability of interpreters and translated materials for linguistic minority hepatitis B/C patients. We also investigated clinicians’ agreement that language barriers are explanations of three scenarios: the low screening uptake of hepatitis B/C screening, the lack of screening in primary care, and why cases do not reach specialist care.

Methods

An online survey was developed, translated and sent to experts in five health care services involved in screening or treating viral hepatitis in six European countries: Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The five areas of health care were: general practice/family medicine, antenatal care, health care for asylum seekers, sexual health and specialist secondary care. We measured availability using a three-point ordinal scale (‘very common’, ‘variable or not routine’ and ‘rarely or never’). We measured agreement using a five-point Likert scale.

Results

We received 238 responses (23% response rate, N = 1026) from representatives in each health care field in each country. Interpreters are common in the UK, the Netherlands and Spain but variable or rare in Germany, Hungary and Italy. Translated materials are rarely/never available in Hungary, Italy and Spain but commonly or variably available in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Differing levels of agreement that language barriers explain the three scenarios are seen across the countries. Professionals in countries with most infrequent availability (Hungary and Italy) disagree strongest that language barriers are explanations.

Conclusions

Our findings show pronounced differences between countries in availability of interpreters, differences that mirror socio-cultural value systems of ‘difference-sensitive’ and ‘difference-blindness’. Improved language support is needed given the complex natural history of hepatitis B/C, the recognised barriers to screening and care, and the large undiagnosed burden among (potentially) linguistic minority migrant groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2095-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The role of the general practitioner in the screening and clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis in six EU countries

INTRODUCTION

Chronic viral hepatitis is still a major public health concern in the EU. In order to halt the progression of the disease and to prevent onward transmission, timely recognition and accurate clinical management are crucial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the general practitioner (GP) in the screening of persons at risk and in the clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis patients in six EU countries.

METHODS

An online survey among GPs and secondary-care specialists was conducted in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy and Spain. In the GP survey, we used a four-point Likert scale to find out how commonly risk groups are screened. In both surveys, we measured GPs involvement in monitoring clinical indicators in patients undergoing antiviral treatment, and explored whether patients in four clinical scenarios are referred back to primary care.

RESULTS

Between five and 10 experts per professional group were surveyed, except for Spain (GPs: n = 2; Specialists: n = 4) and, in the case of the GP survey, Hungary (GPs: n = 1) and Germany (GPs: n = 4). Migrants are variably or not routinely screened for hepatitis B/C in the majority of cases. The majority of GPs reported that hepatitis B/C screening was routinely offered to people who inject drugs. In Hungary, Italy and in the Netherlands, screening sex workers is not a regular practice. As to whether GPs offer screening to men who have sex with men, responses varied; in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, screening was "variably" or "commonly" implemented, while in Hungary the practice seems to be sporadic. In the UK, screening for hepatitis B seems to be common practice among GPs, while hepatitis C testing is only occasionally offered to this risk group. Most GPs (> 44%) in all countries except Hungary reported that hepatitis B/C screening was very commonly offered to HIV patients. The role of GPs in monitoring hepatitis cases and the referral of cases back to GPs by specialists varied both within and between countries. GPs are unlikely to monitor clinical outcomes other than side effects in patients undergoing treatment. Patients who have had a sustained virological response are usually referred back to GPs, whereas patients undergoing antiviral treatment and those who do not respond to treatment are rarely referred back.

CONCLUSIONS

The GP's decision to offer screening to risk groups often seems to be an individual choice of the healthcare professional. Raising GPs' awareness of the disease, for example through the adoption of effective strategies for the dissemination and implementation of the existing guidelines for general practice, is strongly needed. The role of GPs and specialists involved in the management of chronically infected patients should also be clarified, as opinions sometimes differ markedly even within each professional group.