Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since the start of out-of-hours (OOH) primary care clinics, the number of patient consultations has been increasing. Triage plays an important role in patient selection for a consultation, and in providing reassurance and self-management advice. We aimed to investigate whether the smartphone application \"Should I see a doctor?\" (in Dutch:\"moet ik naar de dokter?\") could guide patients in appropriate consultation at OOH clinics by focusing on four topics: 1) app usage, 2) user satisfaction, 3) whether the app provides the correct advice, and 4) whether users intend to follow the advice. A prospective, cross-sectional study amongst app users in a routine primary care setting. The app is a self-triage tool for acute primary care. A built-in questionnaire asked users about the app's clarity, their satisfaction and whether they intended to follow the app's advice (n = 4456). A convenience sample of users was phoned by a triage nurse (reference standard) to evaluate whether the app's advice corresponded with the outcome of the triage call (n = 126). Suggestions of phoned participants were listed. The app was used by patients of all ages, also by parents for their children, and mostly for abdominal pain, skin disorders and cough. 58% of users received the advice to contact the clinic, 34% a self-care advice and 8% to wait-and-see. 65% of users intended to follow the app's advice. The app was rated as 'neutral' to 'very clear' by 87%, and 89% were 'neutral' to 'very satisfied'. In 81% of participants the app's advice corresponded to the triage call outcome, with sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative predictive values of 84%, 74%, 88% and 67%, respectively. The app \"Should I see a doctor?\" could be a valuable tool to guide patients in contacting the OOH primary care clinic for acute care. To further improve the app's safety and efficiency, triaging multiple symptoms should be facilitated, and more information should be provided to patients receiving a wait-and-see advice.

Outpatients with acute cough who expect, hope for or ask for antibiotics may be more unwell, benefit more from antibiotic treatment, and be more satisfied with care when they are prescribed antibiotics. Clinicians may not accurately identify those patients. To explore whether patient views (expecting, hoping for or asking for antibiotics) are associated with illness presentation and resolution, whether patient views are accurately perceived by clinicians, and the association of all these factors with antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction with care. Prospective observational study of 3402 adult patients with acute cough presenting in 14 primary care networks. Correlations and associations tested with multilevel logistic regression and McNemar 's tests, and Cohen's Kappa, positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) calculated as appropriate. 1,213 (45.1%) patients expected, 1,093 (40.6%) hoped for, and 275 (10.2%) asked for antibiotics. Clinicians perceived 840 (31.3%) as wanting to be prescribed antibiotics (McNemar's test, p<0.05). Their perception agreed modestly with the three patient views (Kappa's = 0.29, 0.32 and 0.21, PA's = 0.56, 0.56 and 0.33, NA's = 0.72, 0.75 and 0.82, respectively). 1,464 (54.4%) patients were prescribed antibiotics. Illness presentation and resolution were similar for patients regardless their views. These associations were not modified by antibiotic treatment. Patient expectation and hope (OR:2.08, 95% CI:[1.48,2.93] and 2.48 [1.73,3.55], respectively), and clinician perception (12.18 [8.31,17.84]) were associated with antibiotic prescribing. 2,354 (92.6%) patients were satisfied. Only those hoping for antibiotics were less satisfied when antibiotics were not prescribed (0.39 [0.17,0.90]). Patient views about antibiotic treatment were not useful for identifying those who will benefit from antibiotics. Clinician perceptions did not match with patient views, but particularly influenced antibiotic prescribing. Patients were generally satisfied with care, but those hoping for but not prescribed antibiotics were less satisfied. Clinicians need to more effectively elicit and address patient views about antibiotics.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate whether C reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) safely reduces antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing home residents.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingThe UPCARE study included 11 nursing home organisations in the Netherlands.Participants84 physicians from 11 nursing home organisations included 241 participants with suspected lower respiratory tract infections from September 2018 to the end of March 2020.InterventionsNursing homes allocated to the intervention group had access to CRP POCT. The control group provided usual care without CRP POCT for patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infections.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was antibiotic prescribing at initial consultation. Secondary outcome measures were full recovery at three weeks, changes in antibiotic management and additional diagnostics during follow-up at one week and three weeks, and hospital admission and all cause mortality at any point (initial consultation, one week, or three weeks).ResultsAntibiotics were prescribed at initial consultation for 84 (53.5%) patients in the intervention group and 65 (82.3%) in the control group. Patients in the intervention group had 4.93 higher odds (95% confidence interval 1.91 to 12.73) of not being prescribed antibiotics at initial consultation compared with the control group, irrespective of treating physician and baseline characteristics. The between group difference in antibiotic prescribing at any point from initial consultation to follow-up was 23.6%. Differences in secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups were 4.4% in full recovery rates at three weeks (86.4% v 90.8%), 2.2% in all cause mortality rates (3.5% v 1.3%), and 0.7% in hospital admission rates (7.2% v 6.5%). The odds of full recovery at three weeks, and the odds of mortality and hospital admission at any point did not significantly differ between groups.ConclusionsCRP POCT for suspected lower respiratory tract infection safely reduced antibiotic prescribing compared with usual care in nursing home residents. The findings suggest that implementing CRP POCT in nursing homes might contribute to reduced antibiotic use in this setting and help to combat antibiotic resistance.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL5054

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving more than 84,000 Dutch adults, the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was found to prevent pneumococcal disease but not the overall occurrence of community-acquired pneumonia. Streptococcus pneumoniae , a major cause of community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly, results in considerable morbidity and mortality. 1 – 4 Pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia most commonly presents as nonbacteremic disease. 3 Invasive pneumococcal disease, which involves infection of normally sterile sites, occurs in approximately 25% of cases. 3 Immunologic protection against pneumococcal disease is mediated through opsonophagocytic antibodies directed against bacterial capsular polysaccharides that define the pneumococcal serotypes and serve as virulence factors. 5 Vaccines composed of purified capsular polysaccharides, which have been available for more than 50 years, are not immunogenic in young children. 6 – 8 Although some studies have shown that purified capsular polysaccharides . . .

An individualised action plan (AP) is a potentially effective method of helping patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to recognise and anticipate early exacerbation symptoms. This multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluates the hypothesis that individualised APs reduce exacerbation recovery time. Two hundred and thirty-three patients with COPD (age 65±10 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 56±21% predicted) were randomised to receive either an individualised AP (n=111) or care as usual (n=122). The AP provides individualised treatment prescriptions (pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical) related to a colour-coded symptom status to enhance an adequate response to periods of symptom deterioration (reinforced at 1 and 4 months). Exacerbation onset was defined using the Anthonisen symptom diary card algorithm. Every 3 days the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) was assessed to evaluate the longitudinal course of health status. The primary outcome was health status recovery in the event of an exacerbation. During the 6-month follow-up period there was no difference in exacerbation rates and healthcare utilisation between the two groups. Cox-adjusted survival analysis including frailty showed enhanced health status recovery (HR 1.58; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.60) and reduced length of the exacerbation (HR 1.30; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.84). The mean difference in symptom recovery time was -3.68 days (95% CI -7.32 to -0.04). Mixed model repeated measure analysis showed that an AP decreased the impact of exacerbations on health status both in the prodromal and early post-onset periods. Between-group differences in CCQ scores were above the minimal clinically relevant difference of 0.4 points (3.0±0.7 vs. 3.4±0.9; p≤0.01). This study shows that an individualised AP, including ongoing support by a case manager, decreases the impact of exacerbations on health status and tends to accelerate recovery. APs can be considered a key component of self-management programmes in patients with COPD.

Background Mixed methods are commonly used in health services research; however, data are not often integrated to explore complementarity of findings. A triangulation protocol is one approach to integrating such data. A retrospective triangulation protocol was carried out on mixed methods data collected as part of a process evaluation of a trial. The multi-country randomised controlled trial found that a web-based training in communication skills (including use of a patient booklet) and the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care test decreased antibiotic prescribing by general practitioners (GPs) for acute cough. The process evaluation investigated GPs’ and patients’ experiences of taking part in the trial. Methods Three analysts independently compared findings across four data sets: qualitative data collected view semi-structured interviews with (1) 62 patients and (2) 66 GPs and quantitative data collected via questionnaires with (3) 2886 patients and (4) 346 GPs. Pairwise comparisons were made between data sets and were categorised as agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence. Results Three instances of dissonance occurred in 39 independent findings. GPs and patients reported different views on the use of a CRP test. GPs felt that the test was useful in convincing patients to accept a no-antibiotic decision, but patient data suggested that this was unnecessary if a full explanation was given. Whilst qualitative data indicated all patients were generally satisfied with their consultation, quantitative data indicated highest levels of satisfaction for those receiving a detailed explanation from their GP with a booklet giving advice on self-care. Both qualitative and quantitative data sets indicated higher patient enablement for those in the communication groups who had received a booklet. Conclusions Use of CRP tests does not appear to engage patients or influence illness perceptions and its effect is more centred on changing clinician behaviour. Communication skills and the patient booklet were relevant and useful for all patients and associated with increased patient satisfaction. A triangulation protocol to integrate qualitative and quantitative data can reveal findings that need further interpretation and also highlight areas of dissonance that lead to a deeper insight than separate analyses.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate whether antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults can be reduced through a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention.DesignPragmatic, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial, with a five month baseline period and a seven month follow-up period.Setting38 clusters consisting of one or more general practices (n=43) and older adult care organisations (n=43) in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, from September 2019 to June 2021.Participants1041 frail older adults aged 70 or older (Poland 325, the Netherlands 233, Norway 276, Sweden 207), contributing 411 person years to the follow-up period.InterventionHealthcare professionals received a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention consisting of a decision tool for appropriate antibiotic use, supported by a toolbox with educational materials. A participatory-action-research approach was used for implementation, with sessions for education, evaluation, and local tailoring of the intervention. The control group provided care as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections per person year. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications, all cause hospital referrals, all cause hospital admissions, all cause mortality within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, and all cause mortality.ResultsThe numbers of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections in the follow-up period were 54 prescriptions in 202 person years (0.27 per person year) in the intervention group and 121 prescriptions in 209 person years (0.58 per person year) in the usual care group. Participants in the intervention group had a lower rate of receiving an antibiotic prescription for a suspected urinary tract infection compared with participants in the usual care group, with a rate ratio of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.68). No differences between intervention and control group were observed in the incidence of complications (<0.01 v 0.05 per person year), hospital referrals (<0.01 v 0.05), admissions to hospital (0.01 v 0.05), and mortality (0 v 0.01) within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, nor in all cause mortality (0.26 v 0.26).ConclusionsImplementation of a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention safely reduced antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03970356.

BackgroundIn 2007, ESAC (http://www.esac.ua.ac.be) published a set of 12 valid drug-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use in Europe. In this study, the authors aimed to develop evidence-based disease-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic prescribing in Europe.MethodsTwo meetings were convened to produce a list of disease-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic prescribing which conform to internationally agreed recommendations, building on a similar development of drug-specific quality indicators, and in collaboration with CHAMP and HAPPY AUDIT. 62 experts were asked to complete two scoring rounds of the proposed indicators on seven dimensions: their relevance to (1) reducing antimicrobial resistance, (2) patient health benefit, (3) cost-effectiveness, (4) policy makers, (5) individual prescribers, (6) their evidence base and (7) their range of acceptable use, using a scale ranging from 1 (=completely disagree) to 9 (=completely agree). Scores were judged according to the UCLA-RAND appropriateness method.ResultsFor the six main indications for antibiotic prescribing (acute otitis media, acute upper-respiratory infection, acute/chronic sinusitis, acute tonsillitis, acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, cystitis/other urinary infection) and for pneumonia, three quality indicators were proposed, the percentage prescribed (a) antibiotics; (b) recommended antibiotics; (c) quinolones. This set was scored by 40 experts from 25 countries. After one scoring round, all indicators were already rated as relevant on all dimensions, except one.ConclusionAll proposed disease-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic prescribing have face validity and are potentially applicable. They could be used to better describe antibiotic use and assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing patterns in ambulatory care.

Objectives To quantify the diagnostic accuracy of selected inflammatory markers in addition to symptoms and signs for predicting pneumonia and to derive a diagnostic tool.Design Diagnostic study performed between 2007 and 2010. Participants had their history taken, underwent physical examination and measurement of C reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin in venous blood on the day they first consulted, and underwent chest radiography within seven days.Setting Primary care centres in 12 European countries.Participants Adults presenting with acute cough.Main outcome measures Pneumonia as determined by radiologists, who were blind to all other information when they judged chest radiographs.Results Of 3106 eligible patients, 286 were excluded because of missing or inadequate chest radiographs, leaving 2820 patients (mean age 50, 40% men) of whom 140 (5%) had pneumonia. Re-assessment of a subset of 1675 chest radiographs showed agreement in 94% (κ 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.54). Six published “symptoms and signs models” varied in their discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.61) to 0.71 (0.66 to 0.76)). The optimal combination of clinical prediction items derived from our patients included absence of runny nose and presence of breathlessness, crackles and diminished breath sounds on auscultation, tachycardia, and fever, with an ROC area of 0.70 (0.65 to 0.75). Addition of CRP at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L increased the ROC area to 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) and improved the diagnostic classification (net reclassification improvement 28%). In the 1556 patients classified according to symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L as “low risk” (<2.5%) for pneumonia, the prevalence of pneumonia was 2%. In the 132 patients classified as “high risk” (>20%), the prevalence of pneumonia was 31%. The positive likelihood ratio of low, intermediate, and high risk for pneumonia was 0.4, 1.2, and 8.6 respectively. Measurement of procalcitonin added no relevant additional diagnostic information. A simplified diagnostic score based on symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L resulted in proportions of pneumonia of 0.7%, 3.8%, and 18.2% in the low, intermediate, and high risk group respectively.Conclusions A clinical rule based on symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough performed best in patients with mild or severe clinical presentation. Addition of CRP concentration at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L improved diagnostic information, but measurement of procalcitonin concentration did not add clinically relevant information in this group.

In their interesting systemic review, in The Lancet infectious Diseases, Kyung Kim Do and colleagues1 assessed the current evidence on comparisons between the effects of antibiotic regimens of different length on both clinical and microbiologic outcomes in adult women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections. [...]differences in the number of days with symptoms following antibiotic treatment can be missed when outcomes are compared during reconsultation, as seen in many trials discussed by Kim and colleagues.1 Third, trials should include sufficient numbers of patients to assess differences in complications between treatment groups and be of sufficient length to detect recurrent complaints. [...]some publications rightfully highlighted that we should search for the optimal duration of antibiotic regiments, assessing several lengths of treatments between 1 and 14 days, as well as comparing different dosages, comparing the beneficial effects of short-term and long-term regimens against side-effects, resistance, and costs.7,8 Novel trial designs have been proposed to compare multiple antibiotic regimen durations and dosages, such as adaptive trial set-ups in which interim analyses can be used to adapt allocation to trial groups during the trial or to stop allocation to an intervention that is performing below a predefined cut-off level.