Australian journal of general practice · 2019
Clinic factors associated with better delivery of secondary prophylaxis in acute rheumatic fever management.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Quinn Emma, Girgis Seham, Van Buskirk Joseph, Matthews Veronica, Ward Jeanette E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute rheumatic fever (ARF) is a complication of infection with group A streptococcus. ARF is treated with a long-term regimen of antibiotic secondary prophylaxis. Recent data have shown that only 36% of clients receive >80% of their regimen. The aim of this study was to determine clinic-level factors independently associated with the performance of primary healthcare clinics in delivering secondary prophylaxis to patients with ARF.
METHOD: Cross-sectional de-identified data from clinics agreeing to data retention through the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease National Research Partnership were accessed to calculate secondary prophylaxis performance scores and clinic-level factors associated with secondary prophylaxis performance using regression analysis.
RESULTS: Thirty-six clinics and 496 client records met eligibility criteria for analysis. Clinic secondary prophylaxis performance was significantly associated with 'systematic processes of follow-up'. Every one unit increase in 'systematic approach to follow-up' increased the median level of secondary prophylaxis performance by 30% (95% confidence interval: 2, 66). Clinic accreditation status, location or workforce were not associated with secondary prophylaxis performance.
DISCUSSION: General practitioners as clinical leaders are well placed to support managers to critically review follow-up and electronic reminder systems for secondary prophylaxis delivery at clinic level.
METHOD: Cross-sectional de-identified data from clinics agreeing to data retention through the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease National Research Partnership were accessed to calculate secondary prophylaxis performance scores and clinic-level factors associated with secondary prophylaxis performance using regression analysis.
RESULTS: Thirty-six clinics and 496 client records met eligibility criteria for analysis. Clinic secondary prophylaxis performance was significantly associated with 'systematic processes of follow-up'. Every one unit increase in 'systematic approach to follow-up' increased the median level of secondary prophylaxis performance by 30% (95% confidence interval: 2, 66). Clinic accreditation status, location or workforce were not associated with secondary prophylaxis performance.
DISCUSSION: General practitioners as clinical leaders are well placed to support managers to critically review follow-up and electronic reminder systems for secondary prophylaxis delivery at clinic level.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAustraliaChemopreventionClinical AuditDuration of TherapyFemaleHumansInjections, IntramuscularMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPenicillin G BenzathinePrimary Health CareRheumatic FeverRheumatic Heart DiseaseSecondary PreventionYoung Adult