| Literature DB >> 31782501 |
Geoff McCombe1, Bashayer Almaazmi1, Walter Cullen1, John S Lambert1,2, Gordana Avramovic1, Carol Murphy2, Mairead O'Connor2, Nicola Perry3, Irina Ianache4, Stefan Lazar4,5, Tina McHugh2, Julian Surey6, Juan Macías7, Peter Vickerman8, Cristiana Oprea4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is increasingly being recognized that the elimination of HCV requires a multidisciplinary approach and effective cooperation between primary and secondary care.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31782501 PMCID: PMC6883391 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkz453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother ISSN: 0305-7453 Impact factor: 5.790
Summary of the results of the pre- and post-course knowledge evaluation tests for HCV Masterclasses, Bucharest
| Masterclass 1 ( | Masterclass 2 ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | pre-course | post-course | pre-course | post-course |
| Prevalence of HCV among PWID in Romania | 33 (61.1) | 52 (96.2) | 34 (70.8) | 48 (94.1) |
| Modes of HCV acquisition | 23 (42.5) | 48 (88.9) | 24 (47.0) | 48 (94.1) |
| HCV extrahepatic manifestations | 23 (42.5) | 45 (83.3) | 21 (41.1) | 43 (84.3) |
| DAA treatment | 27 (50.0) | 49 (90.7) | 23 (45.1) | 49 (96.0) |
| Drug–drug interactions | 27 (50.0) | 47 (87.0) | 24 (47.0) | 46 (90.1) |
| Influence of injectable psychoactive drugs on HCV transmission | 33 (61.1) | 52 (96.2) | 30 (58.9) | 49 (96.0) |
| Injecting drug use and DAA treatment | 25 (46.3) | 53 (98.1) | 29 (56.9) | 50 (98.0) |
Results shown are n (%).
Figure 1.Results of the pre and post evaluation questionnaires used in HCPs who attended the HCV Masterclass in Bucharest.
Summary of responses from Masterclasses (Dublin)
| Category | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither | Agree | Strongly agree | Total number of responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| As a result of the seminar, I am better able to: | ||||||
| Appreciate the role of primary care in the management of patients with HCV | 0% | 0% | 0% | 62% | 38% | 58 |
| Appreciate the role of secondary care in the management of patients with HCV | 0% | 0% | 0% | 57% | 43% | 58 |
| Describe new approaches to assessment for patients with HCV (e.g. FibroScan) | 0% | 0% | 5% | 48% | 47% | 58 |
| Describe new approaches to treatment for patients with HCV | 0% | 0% | 14% | 52% | 34% | 58 |
| Understand the importance of integrating services to better treat patients | 0% | 0% | 2% | 58% | 40% | 58 |
| Understand that patients have multiple co- morbidities | 0% | 0% | 0% | 32% | 68% | 58 |
| Better understand complications of untreated HCV infection | 0% | 15% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 57 |
| Interact with the Mater Hospital Infectious Diseases Department | 0% | 0% | 20% | 40% | 40% | 56 |
|
| ||||||
| The following were useful in helping me achieve these outcomes: | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Presentations | 0% | 0% | 5% | 60% | 35% | 54 |
|
| ||||||
| Support | Not at all useful | Somewhat useful | Useful | Very useful | Total number of responses | |
|
| ||||||
| In implementing the new ‘HepCare’ programme in your practice, how useful would you find the following supports? | ||||||
| Audit and feedback | 0% | 19% | 56% | 25% | 48 | |
| Educational programmes | 0% | 0% | 71% | 29% | 49 | |
| Computerized decision-making support | 0% | 12% | 41% | 47% | 48 | |
| A designated nurse to liaise with hospital services | 0% | 0% | 11% | 89% | 52 | |
| Academic detailing (i.e. practice visits by team) | 0% | 6% | 18% | 76% | 46 | |
108 participants attended three Masterclasses; 58 participants completed evaluation forms.
Summary of responses from Masterclasses (Bucharest)
| Category | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| As a result of the seminar, I am better able to: | ||||||
| Understand the impact of alcohol use in clinical evolution of hepatitis C (HCV) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 98% | |
| Describe why alcohol use is an important issue among problem drug users | 0% | 0% | 2% | 73% | 25% | |
| Approach the conversation about alcohol with patients | 0% | 0% | 1% | 37% | 62% | |
| Understand the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection among prisoners | 0% | 0% | 0% | 23% | 77% | |
| Understand the importance of HIV/HCV/TB coinfection treatment among prisoners | 0% | 0% | 0% | 15% | 85% | |
| Appreciate the complex management of HIV/HCV/TB coinfected injecting drug users | 0% | 0% | 3% | 33% | 64% | |
| Understand the new approaches regarding HCV treatment | 0% | 0% | 0% | 37% | 73% | |
| Describe the ‘treatment as prevention’ method regarding HCV treatment for patients from vulnerable groups | 0% | 0% | 0% | 10% | 90% | |
| Describe the barriers patients from vulnerable groups have to face in order to access healthcare services | 0% | 0% | 0% | 12% | 88% | |
| Appreciate the difficulties faced by injecting drug users in the process of social reintegration | 0% | 0% | 2% | 5% | 93% | |
| Appreciate the importance of integration of primary and secondary care for HCV management | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 97% | |
| Improve my collaboration with medical staff from Victor Babes Hospital | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 94% | |
|
| ||||||
| The following were useful in helping me achieve these outcomes: | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Presentations | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 97% | |
| Workshops | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 95% | |
|
| ||||||
| Support | Not at all useful | Somewhat useful | Useful | Very useful | ||
|
| ||||||
| In implementing the new ‘Hepcare’ programme in your practice, how useful would you find the following supports? | ||||||
| Educational programmes | 0% | 0% | 4% | 96% | ||
| A designated trained person to liaise with hospital services | 0% | 0% | 10% | 90% | ||
| Academic detailing (i.e. practice visits by team) | 0% | 0% | 20% | 80% | ||
| Peer support meetings for patients | 0% | 0% | 7% | 93% | ||
| Informational materials for patients | 0% | 0% | 4% | 96% | ||
| Contact with mobile teams responsible for HCV screening among vulnerable patients | 0% | 0% | 4% | 96% | ||
| Would any other support/activity help you manage patients with HCV? | 0% | 0% | 8% | 92% | ||
| Any other comments? | ||||||
The total number of participants was 143; the total number of respondents was 105.
When asked ‘Please give a brief appreciation of the seminar, scoring the following aspects from 1 (min) to 5 (max):’, the responses were: Importance of the information for daily practice, 5; Agenda of the seminar, 5; Support materials, 5; Interaction between the lecturers and the attendees, 5; Perspectives for collaboration between GPs and medical staff from the hospital for a better management of patients from vulnerable groups, 4.
When asked whether the participants would recommend the course to a colleague, 97% answered ‘Strongly agree’ and 3% ‘Agree’.