Clinic factors associated with better delivery of secondary prophylaxis in acute rheumatic fever management.
Clicks: 342
ID: 68129
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
342 views
58 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 5 articles by views in Australian journal of general practice
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
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.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.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.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.
| Reference Key |
quinn2019clinicaustralian
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Quinn, Emma;Girgis, Seham;Van Buskirk, Joseph;Matthews, Veronica;Ward, Jeanette E; |
| Journal | Australian journal of general practice |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.31128/AJGP-07-19-4987
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.