ObjectiveLong-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is the most effective form of contraception but use in Australia is low. Uptake of LARC prescribing by early-career general practitioners (GPs) has important implications for community reproductive health. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and associations of Australian GP registrars’ LARC prescribing.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study 2010–2017. GP registrars collected data on 60 consecutive consultations on three occasions during their training. The outcome factor was prescription of LARC (compared with non-LARC). A secondary analysis was performed with problems involving prescription of LARC (compared with other problems). Associations with patient, practice, registrar and consultation independent variables were assessed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression.Results1737 registrars recorded 5382 problems/diagnoses involving women aged 12–55 years in which contraception was prescribed. 1356 (25%) involved LARC. Significant multivariable associations of prescribing LARC included patient age (OR 2.85, 95% CI 3.17 to 3.74, for age 36–45 years compared with age 12–18 years), practice rurality - inner-regional (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.79) and outer-regional/remote/very remote (OR 1.47 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87) compared with major cities, practices in areas of lower socioeconomic status (SES) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96 for SES by decile), generating learning goals (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79), in-consultation assistance-seeking (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.01), and the registrar having reproductive health-related postgraduate qualifications (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76).ConclusionsThe prevalence of LARC prescribing by Australian GP registrars is higher than has been previously estimated in established GPs. Postgraduate qualifications in reproductive health are associated with prescribing LARC. Prescribing practice differs according to rurality and relative socioeconomic disadvantage.
ObjectiveTo establish the prevalence and associations of systemic antibiotic prescription for impetigo by early-career general practitioners (GPs) (GP registrars in their first 18 months in general practice).DesignA cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study.SettingReCEnT is an ongoing multisite cohort study of Australian registrars’ in-consultation clinical practice across five Australian states.ParticipantsRegistrars participating in ReCEnT from 2010 to 2017.Outcome measuresManagement of impetigo with systemic antibiotics.Results1741 registrars (response rate 96%) provided data from 384 731 problems identified in 246 434 consultations. Impetigo, on first presentation or follow-up, was managed in 930 (0.38%, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.40) consultations and comprised 0.24% (95% CI 0.23 to 0.26) of problems. 683 patients presented with a new diagnosis of impetigo of which 38/683 (5.6%) were not prescribed antibiotics; 239/683 (35.0%) were prescribed solely topical antibiotics; 306/683 (44.8%) solely systemic antibiotics and 100/683 (14.6%) both systemic and topical antibiotics. The most common systemic antibiotic prescribed was cephalexin (53.5%). Variables independently associated with prescription of systemic antibiotics were an inner regional (compared with major city) location (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.13; p=0.028), seeking in-consultation information or advice (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.23; p<0.001) and ordering pathology (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.33; p=0.01).ConclusionsAustralian early-career GPs prescribe systemic antibiotics (the majority broad-spectrum) for a high proportion of initial impetigo presentations. Impetigo guidelines should clearly specify criteria for systemic antibiotic prescription and individual antibiotic choice. The role of non-antibiotic management and topical antiseptics needs to be explored further.
INTRODUCTION: Over-prescription of antibiotics for common infective conditions is an important health issue. Infective conjunctivitis represents one of the most common eye-related complaints in general practice. Despite its self-limiting nature, there is evidence of frequent general practitioner (GP) antibiotic prescribing for this condition, which is inconsistent with evidence-based guidelines. AIM: To investigate the prevalence and associations of GP registrars' (trainees') prescription of antibiotics for infective conjunctivitis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Registrar Encounters in Clinical Training (ReCEnT) ongoing prospective cohort study, which documents GP registrars' clinical consultations (involving collection of information from 60 consecutive consultations, at three points during registrar training). The outcome of the analyses was antibiotic prescription for a new diagnosis of conjunctivitis. Patient, registrar, practice and consultation variables were included in uni-and multivariable logistic regression analyses to test associations of these prescriptions. RESULTS: In total, 2333 registrars participated in 18 data collection rounds from 2010 to 2018. There were 1580 new cases of infective conjunctivitis (0.31% of all problems). Antibiotics (mainly topical) were prescribed in 1170 (74%) of these cases. Variables associated with antibiotic prescription included patients' Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, registrar organisation of a follow up (both registrar and other GP follow up), and earlier registrar training term (more junior status). DISCUSSION: GP registrars, like established GPs, prescribe antibiotics for conjunctivitis in excess of guideline recommendations, but prescribing rates are lower in later training. These prescribing patterns have educational, social and economic consequences. Further educational strategies may enhance attenuation of registrars' prescribing during training.
Objective To investigate whether practice rurality and rural training pathway are associated with general practitioner registrars' participation in their practice's after‐hours care roster. Design A cross‐sectional analysis of data (2017‐2019) from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training study, an ongoing inception cohort study of Australian general practitioner registrars. The principal analyses used logistic regression. Setting Three national general practitioner regional training organisations across 3 Australian states. Participants General practitioner registrars in training within regional training organisations. Main outcome measure Involvement in practice after‐hours care was indicated by a dichotomous response on a 6‐monthly Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training study questionnaire item. Results 1576 registrars provided 3158 observations (response rate 90.3%). Of these, 1574 (48.6% [95% confidence interval: 46.8‐50.3]) involved registrars contributing to their practice's after‐hours roster. In major cities, 40% of registrar terms involved contribution to their practice's after‐hours roster; in regional and remote practices, 62% contributed to the after‐hours roster. On multivariable analysis, both level of rurality of practice (odds ratio(OR) 1.75, P = .007; and OR 1.74, P = .026 for inner regional and outer regional/remote locations, respectively, versus major city) and rural training pathway of registrar (OR 1.65, P = .008) were significantly associated with more after‐hours roster contribution. Other associations were registrars' later training stage, larger practices and practices not routinely bulk billing. Significant regional variability in after‐hours care was identified (after adjusting for rurality). Conclusion These findings suggest that registrars working rurally and those training on the rural pathway are more often participating in practice after‐hours rosters. This has workforce implications, and implications for the educational richness of registrars' training environment.
IntroductionGeneral practice in Australia, as in many countries, faces challenges in the areas of workforce capacity and workforce distribution. General practice vocational training in Australia not only addresses the training of competent independent general practitioners (GPs) but also addresses these workforce issues. This study aims to establish the prevalence and associations of early career (within 2 years of completion of vocational training) GPs’ practice characteristics; and also to establish their perceptions of utility of their training in preparing them for independent practice.Methods and analysisThis will be a cross-sectional questionnaire study. Participants will be former registrars (‘alumni’) of three regional training organisations (RTOs) who achieved general practice Fellowship (qualifying them for independent practice) between January 2016 and July 2018 inclusive. The questionnaire data will be linked to data collected as part of the participants’ educational programme with the RTOs. Outcomes will include alumni rurality of practice; socioeconomic status of practice; retention within their RTO’s geographic footprint; workload; provision of nursing home care, after-hours care and home visits; and involvement in general practice teaching and supervision. Associations of these outcomes will be established with logistic regression. The utility of RTO-provided training versus in-practice training in preparing the early career GP for unsupervised post-Ffellowship practice in particular aspects of practice will be assessed with χ2 tests.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is by the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee, approval numbers H-2018-0333 and H-2009-0323. The findings of this study will be widely disseminated via conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals, educational practice translational workshops and the GP Synergy Research subwebsite.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.