Background If healthcare professionals perceive that patients strongly expect to be prescribed antibiotics, inappropriate prescriptions may result. As it is unknown whether this happens more often with certain patient groups, we explored whether general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists perceived such expectations when they provided antibiotics to immigrant patients. Methods Ten GPs and five pharmacists from Rotterdam, the Netherlands, were interviewed on the basis of a semi-structured topic guide. Atlas.ti software was then used to conduct a thematic analysis. Results GPs felt that immigrant patients, especially those who had arrived recently, were more likely to expect to receive antibiotics than native Dutch patients. However, these expectations had decreased over the last years and did not always lead immigrants to exert pressure on them. Except for language barriers, the factors reported by GPs to influence their antibiotic prescribing behaviour were unrelated to patients’ immigrant background. If there was a language barrier, GPs experienced greater diagnostic uncertainty and needed additional time to obtain and communicate correct information. To overcome language barriers, they often used point-of-care testing to convince patients that antibiotics were unnecessary. Although pharmacists rarely experienced problems dispensing antibiotics to immigrants, they and GPs both struggled to find effective ways of overcoming language barriers, and stressed the need for multi-language support materials. Conclusion While pharmacists rarely experience any problems providing antibiotics to immigrants, GPs regularly face language barriers with immigrant patients, which complicate the diagnostic process and communicating information in the limited available time. This sometimes leads antibiotics to be prescribed inappropriately.

IntroductionAlthough antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in the Netherlands is comparatively low, inappropriate prescription of antibiotics is substantial, mainly for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). General practitioners (GPs) experience pressure from patients with an immigration background to prescribe antibiotics and have difficulty communicating in a culturally sensitive way. Multifaceted interventions including communication skills training for GPs are shown to be most effective in reducing antibiotic prescription. The PARCA study aims to reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs through implementing a culturally sensitive communication intervention for GPs and evaluate it in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysisA non-blinded RCT including 58 GPs (29 for each arm). The intervention consists of: (1) An E-learning with 4 modules of 10–15 min each; (2) A face-to-face training session in (intercultural) communication skills including role plays with a training actor and (3) Availability of informative patient-facing materials that use simple words (A2/B1 level) in multiple languages. The primary outcome measure is the number of dispensed antibiotic courses qualifying for RTIs in primary care, per 1000 registered patients. The secondary outcome measure is the number of all dispensed antibiotic courses, per 1000 registered patients. The intervention arm will receive the training in Autumn 2021, followed by an observation period of 6 winter months for which numbers of antibiotics will be collected for both trial arms. The GPs/practices in the control arm can attend the training after the observation period.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC-2020-0142). The results of the trial will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be disseminated through national and international congresses. The project is funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).Trial registration numberNL9450.

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of obtaining nasal and rectal swabs from general practice patients for measuring carriage of antibiotic resistant microorganisms in an area in Rotterdam (the Netherlands) with low socioeconomic status and a large immigrant population. Methods Data collection was from May to December 2017, in one general practice in Rotterdam. We asked adults (≥18 years) visiting the general practitioner (GP) with complaints not related to infections for one nasal and two rectal swabs and tested these for highly resistant microorganisms (HRMOs). Indicators for feasibility were recruitment rate, implementation and acceptation of data collection procedures by the participants. Results We obtained a nasal swab from all included 234 patients and 164 (70%) also gave rectal swabs. On average, 3 out of 30 invited patients (10%) were recruited per day. The GPs considered the workload high to inform and refer to eligible patients for the study and did this inconsistently. Most participants experienced the rectal swab procedure as burdensome and preferred assistance of a medical assistant above self-swabbing. A monetary incentive increased the willingness to provide rectal swabs. Conclusions Obtaining (nasal and) rectal swabs from general practice patients for study purposes proved difficult. Lessons learnt from this feasibility study will help increase participation in HRMO prevalence studies among asymptomatic general practice patients.