Background: Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology’s ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. Objective: To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. Methods: Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. Results: Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient’s technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. Conclusions: Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a leading global public health concern and antibiotic use is a key driver. Effective interventions are needed to target key stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs). In Malta, little is known about factors that influence GPs’ antibiotic prescribing, making it challenging to implement targeted interventions. We therefore aimed to explore GPs’ understanding of antibiotic use and resistance, and describe their perceived barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Malta.Methods: Face-to-face individual semi-structured interviews were held with a quota sample of 20 GPs in 2014. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and later analysed iteratively using manifest and latent content analysis. Findings were collated in a socioecological model to depict how GPs as individuals are embedded within larger social systems and contexts, and how each component within this system impacts their prescribing behaviour.Findings: We found that GPs’ antibiotic prescribing decisions are complex and impacted by numerous barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, organisational, community, and public policy level. Predominant factors found to impact GPs’ antibiotic prescribing included not only intrinsic GP factors such as knowledge, awareness, experience, and misconceptions, but also several external factors. At the interpersonal level, GPs’ perceived patient demand and behaviour to be a persistent issue that impacts their prescribing decisions. Similarly, some GPs found pressure from drug reps to be concerning despite being considered an important source of information. Organisational and public policy-level issues such as lack of access to relevant antibiotic prescribing guidelines and current antibiotic resistance data from the community, were also considered major barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Utilisation of diagnostic testing was found to be low and GPs’ perceptions on the introduction of rapid point-of-care tests to support antibiotic prescription decisions, were mixed.Conclusion: This study revealed the complexity of the antibiotic prescribing decision and the numerous barriers and facilitators that impact it, visualised through a socioecological model. Addressing GPs’ antibiotic prescribing practices will require targeted and coordinated implementation activities at all levels to change behaviour and address misconceptions, whilst also improving the physical and social environment.Trial registration number: NCT03218930;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.

Objective To identify factors that influence general practitioners’ (GPs’) oral antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract complaints (aRTCs) in Malta. Design Repeated, cross-sectional surveillance. Setting Maltese general practice; both public health centres and private GP clinics. Participants 30 GPs registered on the Malta Medical Council’s Specialist Register and 3 GP trainees registered data of 4831 patients of all ages suffering from any aRTC. Data were collected monthly between May 2015 and April 2016 during predetermined 1-week periods. Outcome measures The outcome of interest was antibiotic prescription (yes/no), defined as an oral antibiotic prescription issued for an aRTC during an in-person consultation, irrespective of the number of antibiotics given. The association between GP, practice and consultation-level factors, patient sociodemographic factors and patient health status factors, and antibiotic prescription was investigated. Results The antibiotic prescription rate was 45.0%. Independent factors positively associated with antibiotic prescribing included female GP sex (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.26), GP age with GPs ≥60 being the most likely (OR 34.7, 95% CI 14.14 to 84.98), patient age with patients ≥65 being the most likely (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.18), number of signs and/or symptoms with patients having ≥4 being the most likely (OR 9.6, 95% CI 5.78 to 15.99), fever (OR 2.6, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.26), productive cough (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), otalgia (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76), tender cervical nodes (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.05), regular clients (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66), antibiotic requests (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.52 to 8.99) and smoking (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.71). Conversely, patients with non-productive cough (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.41), sore throat (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78), rhinorrhoea (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.36) or dyspnoea (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83) were less likely to receive an antibiotic prescription. Conclusion Antibiotic prescribing for aRTCs was high and influenced by a number of factors. Potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care can be addressed through multifaceted interventions addressing modifiable factors associated with prescription. Trial registration number NCT03218930

Background: Both clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve care access, even in physical examination–dependent specialties such as dermatology. However, little is known about whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, which is a common care coordination gap. Objective: Using mixed methods, this study sought to retrospectively evaluate how teledermatology affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care. Methods: Patient-level encounter scheduling data were used to compare the number and proportion of patients who were scheduled and received in-clinic or video dermatology follow-ups within 14 and 90 days after discharge across 3 phases: June to September 2019 (before teledermatology), June to September 2020 (early teledermatology), and February to May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). The time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient follow-up visits for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions of teledermatology for postdischarge patients. Results: More patients completed follow-up within 90 days after discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). Thus, the clinic’s capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient increased from baseline by 36% in the early (101 from 74) and sustained (100 from 74) teledermatology periods. During early teledermatology use, 61.4% (62/101) of the follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (47/100) in the following year, when COVID-19–related restrictions started to lift (P=.04), indicating more targeted but still substantial use. The proportion of patients who were followed up within the recommended 14 days after discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (33/62, 53% vs 15/39, 38%; P=.15) or sustained (26/53, 60% vs 28/47, 49%; P=.29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology would continue to be offered. Most considered postdischarge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology as they had undergone a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits because of competing health priorities. Some reported patients needing technological support. Ultimately, most agreed that the choice of follow-up care modality should be the patient’s own. Conclusions: Teledermatology could be an important tool for maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during the pandemic, although the timeliness of care transitions did not improve. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined through communication with patients to incorporate their and their caregivers’ preferences.

Introduction Antibiotic misuse is a key driver of antibiotic resistance. In 2015/2016, Maltese respondents reported the highest proportions of antibiotic consumption in Europe. Since antibiotics are prescription-only medicines in Malta, research on effective strategies targeting general practitioners’ (GPs) knowledge and behaviour is needed. Multifaceted behaviour change (BC) interventions are likely to be effective. Social marketing (SM) can provide the tools to promote sustained BC; however, its utilisation in Europe is limited. This paper aims to describe the design and methods of a multifaceted SM intervention aimed at changing Maltese GPs’ antibiotic prescribing behaviour for patients with acute respiratory tract infections (aRTIs). Methods and analysis This 4-year quasiexperimental intervention study will be carried out in Malta and includes three phases: preintervention, intervention and postintervention. The preintervention phase intends to gain insight into the practices and attitudes of GPs, pharmacists and parents through interviews, focus group discussions and antibiotic prescribing surveillance. A 6-month intervention targeting GPs will be implemented following assessment of their prescribing intention and readiness for BC. The intervention will likely comprise: prescribing guidelines, patient educational materials, delayed antibiotic prescriptions and GP education. Outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase through questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour and stages-of-change theory, as well as postintervention surveillance. The primary outcome will be the antibiotic prescribing rate for all patients with aRTIs. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of diagnosis-specific antibiotic prescription and symptomatic relief medication prescribed, and the change in GPs stage-of-change and their intention to prescribe antibiotics. Ethics and dissemination The project received ethical approval from the University of Malta’s Research Ethics Committee. Should this intervention successfully decrease antibiotic prescribing, it may be scaled up locally and transferred to similar settings. Trial registration number NCT03218930; Pre-results.