Understanding the adoption and use of point-of-care tests in Dutch general practices using multi-criteria decision analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The increasing number of available point-of-care (POC) tests challenges clinicians regarding decisions on which tests to use, how to efficiently use them, and how to interpret the results. Although POC tests may offer benefits in terms of low turn-around-time, improved patient’s satisfaction, and health outcomes, only few are actually used in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aims to identify which criteria are, in general, important in the decision to implement a POC test, and to determine their weight. Two POC tests available for use in Dutch general practices (i.e. the C-reactive protein (CRP) test and the glycated haemoglobin (HbA _1c) test) serve as case studies. The information obtained from this study can be used to guide POC test development and their introduction in clinical practice.

Methods

Relevant criteria were identified based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with twelve experts in the field. Subsequently, the criteria were clustered in four groups (i.e. user, organization, clinical value, and socio-political context) and the relative importance of each criterion was determined by calculating geometric means as implemented in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Of these twelve experts, ten participated in a facilitated group session, in which their priorities regarding both POC tests (compared to central laboratory testing) were elicited.

Results

Of 20 criteria in four clusters, the test’s clinical utility, its technical performance, and risks (associated with the treatment decision based on the test result) were considered most important for using a POC test, with relative weights of 22.2, 12.6 and 8.5%, respectively. Overall, the experts preferred the POC CRP test over its laboratory equivalent, whereas they did not prefer the POC HbA _1c test. This difference was mainly explained by their strong preference for the POC CRP test with regard to the subcriterion ‘clinical utility’.

Conclusions

The list of identified criteria, and the insights in their relative impact on successful implementation of POC tests, may facilitate implementation and use of existing POC tests in clinical practice. In addition, having experts score new POC tests on these criteria, provides developers with specific recommendations on how to increase the probability of successful implementation and use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0893-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 30

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial

Jochen W. L. Cals, Christopher Butler, Rogier Hopstaken … (2009)

Objective To assess the effect of general practitioner testing for C reactive protein (disease approach) and receiving training in enhanced communication skills (illness approach) on antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection. Design Pragmatic, 2×2 factorial, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 20 general practices in the Netherlands. Participants 40 general practitioners from 20 practices recruited 431 patients with lower respiratory tract infection. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic prescribing during 28 days’ follow-up, reconsultation, clinical recovery, and patients’ satisfaction and enablement. Interventions General practitioners’ use of C reactive protein point of care testing and training in enhanced communication skills separately and combined, and usual care. Results General practitioners in the C reactive protein test group prescribed antibiotics to 31% of patients compared with 53% in the no test group (P=0.02). General practitioners trained in enhanced communication skills prescribed antibiotics to 27% of patients compared with 54% in the no training group (P<0.01). Both interventions showed a statistically significant effect on antibiotic prescribing at any point during the 28 days’ follow-up. Clinicians in the combined intervention group prescribed antibiotics to 23% of patients (interaction term was non-significant). Patients’ recovery and satisfaction were similar in all study groups. Conclusion Both general practitioners’ use of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in enhanced communication skills significantly reduced antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection without compromising patients’ recovery and satisfaction with care. A combination of the illness and disease focused approaches may be necessary to achieve the greatest reduction in antibiotic prescribing for this common condition in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85154857.

0 comments Cited 148 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in patients with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Rune Aabenhus, Jens-Ulrik Jensen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen … (2014)

Background Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. Unnecessary antibiotic use will, in many cases, not be beneficial to the patients' recovery and expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, as a causal link exists between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance, reducing unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling this important problem. Antibiotic resistance puts increasing burdens on healthcare services and renders patients at risk of future ineffective treatments, in turn increasing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. One strategy aiming to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is the guidance of antibiotic treatment by use of a point-of-care biomarker. A point-of-care biomarker of infection forms part of the acute phase response to acute tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma and inflammation) and may in the correct clinical context be used as a surrogate marker of infection,possibly assisting the doctor in the clinical management of ARIs.Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of infection to guide antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of age.Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014), EMBASE (2010 to January 2014), CINAHL (1981 to January 2014), Web of Science (1955 to January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to January 2014).Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard of care. We included trials that randomised individual patients as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients(cluster-RCTs).Two review authors independently extracted data on the following outcomes: i) impact on antibiotic use; ii) duration of and recovery from infection; iii) complications including the number of re-consultations, hospitalisations and mortality; iv) patient satisfaction. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and applied GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with a high level of heterogeneity in pre-specified subgroups of individually and cluster-RCTs.Main results The only point-of-care biomarker of infection currently available to primary care identified in this review was C-reactive protein. We included six trials (3284 participants; 139 children) that evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test. The available information was from trials with a low to moderate risk of bias that address the main objectives of this review.Overall a reduction in the use of antibiotic treatments was found in the C-reactive protein group (631/1685) versus standard of care(785/1599). However, the high level of heterogeneity and the statistically significant test for subgroup differences between the three RCTs and three cluster-RCTs suggest that the results of the meta-analysis on antibiotic use should be interpreted with caution and the pooled effect estimate (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; I2 statistic = 68%) may not be meaningful.The observed heterogeneity disappeared in our pre planned subgroup analysis based on study design: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; I2 statistic = 5% for RCTs and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75; I2 statistic = 0% for cluster-RCTs, suggesting that this was the cause of the observed heterogeneity.There was no difference between using a C-reactive protein point-of-care test and standard care in clinical recovery (defined as at least substantial improvement at day 7 and 28 or need for re-consultations day 28). However, we noted an increase in hospitalisations in the C-reactive protein group in one study, but this was based on few events and may be a chance finding. No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.We classified the quality of the evidence as moderate according to GRADE due to imprecision of the main effect estimate.Authors' conclusions A point-of-care biomarker (e.g. C-reactive protein) to guide antibiotic treatment of ARIs in primary care can reduce antibiotic use,although the degree of reduction remains uncertain. Used as an adjunct to a doctor's clinical examination this reduction in antibiotic use did not affect patient-reported outcomes, including recovery from and duration of illness.However, a possible increase in hospitalisations is of concern. A more precise effect estimate is needed to assess the costs of the intervention and compare the use of a point-of-care biomarker to other antibiotic-saving strategies.

0 comments Cited 84 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial.

Jochen W. L. Cals, Marjolein J C Schot, Sanne A M de Jong … (2015)

Antibiotics are only beneficial for subgroups of patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) and rhinosinusitis in family practice, yet overprescribing for these conditions is common. C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing and delayed prescribing are useful strategies to reduce antibiotic prescribing, but both have limitations. We evaluated the effect of CRP assistance in antibiotic prescribing strategies-including delayed prescribing-in the management of LRTI and rhinosinusitis. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which 258 patients were enrolled (107 LRTI and 151 rhinosinusitis) by 32 family physicians. Patients were individually randomized to CRP assistance or routine care (control). Primary outcome was antibiotic use after the index consultation. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic use during the 28-day follow-up, patient satisfaction, and clinical recovery. Patients in the CRP-assisted group used fewer antibiotics (43.4%) than control patients (56.6%) after the index consultation (relative risk [RR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.98). This difference remained significant during follow-up (52.7% vs 65.1%; RR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99). Delayed prescriptions in the CRP-assisted group were filled only in a minority of cases (23% vs 72% in control group, P < .001). Recovery was similar across groups. Satisfaction with care was higher in patients managed with CRP assistance (P = .03). CRP point-of-care testing to assist in prescribing decisions, including delayed prescribing, for LRTI and rhinosinusitis may be a useful strategy to decrease antibiotic use and increase patient satisfaction without compromising patient recovery.

0 comments Cited 72 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Michelle M. A. Kip:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6405-6789

+31 (0)53 489 6646 , m.m.a.kip@utwente.nl

J. Marjan Hummel: marjan.hummel@philips.com

Elra B. Eppink: elraeppink@hotmail.com

Hendrik Koffijberg: h.koffijberg@utwente.nl

Rogier M. Hopstaken: rogier.hopstaken@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Maarten J. IJzerman: m.j.ijzerman@utwente.nl

Ron Kusters: g.c.m.kusters@utwente.nl

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Fam Pract

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Fam Pract

Title: BMC Family Practice

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2296

Publication date (Electronic): 10 January 2019

Publication date PMC-release: 10 January 2019

Publication date Collection: 2019

Volume: 20

Electronic Location Identifier: 8

Affiliations

[1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0399 8953, GRID grid.6214.1, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, , University of Twente, ; P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands

[2 ]Star-SHL diagnostic center, Etten-Leur, The Netherlands

[3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0501 9798, GRID grid.413508.b, Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, , Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, ; Den Bosch, The Netherlands

Author information

Michelle M. A. Kip http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6405-6789

Article

Publisher ID: 893

DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0893-4

PMC ID: 6327588

PubMed ID: 30630430

SO-VID: 57e2ae91-561f-4028-b79c-37af1e0c2886

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 13 November 2017

Date accepted : 16 December 2018

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: analytic hierarchy process,health technology assessment,adoption,multi-criteria decision analysis,point-of-care tests,preference elicitation,primary care

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: analytic hierarchy process, health technology assessment, adoption, multi-criteria decision analysis, point-of-care tests, preference elicitation, primary care

Understanding the adoption and use of point-of-care tests in Dutch general practices using multi-criteria decision analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

Point-of-Care Testing for COVID-19

Most cited references 30

Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in patients with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 124

Cited by 12

Most referenced authors 300