14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in children with cough: qualitative study of GPs' perceptions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing is widely accepted in Dutch general practice for adult patients with acute cough, but GPs’ perceptions of its use in children with suspected lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) are unknown. Knowledge of these perceptions is important when considering broadening its indication to use in children.

          Aim

          To explore the perceptions of Dutch GPs of the addition of point-of-care CRP testing to the diagnostic evaluation of children, and compare these to their perceptions of use in adults.

          Design & setting

          A qualitative study in general practice in the Netherlands.

          Method

          Semi-structured interviews were held with 11 GPs. Interviews were analysed using open coding and a thematic approach.

          Results

          GPs’ perceptions of the addition of point-of-care CRP testing to diagnostic process in children with suspected LRTI differ from their perceptions of this in adults. Five themes were identified: patient characteristics; vulnerability of the child; clinical presentation; availability of evidence; the impact of the procedure; and use of point-of-care CRP testing as a communication tool.

          Conclusion

          Differences between the perceptions of using point-of-care CRP testing in children and adults need to be addressed when considering the possible implementation of this diagnostic instrument.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Inappropriate antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract indications: most prominent in adult patients.

          Numerous studies suggest overprescribing of antibiotics for respiratory tract indications (RTIs), without really authenticating inappropriate prescription; the strict criteria of guideline recommendations were not taken into account as information on specific diagnoses, patient characteristics and disease severity was not available.
            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.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Current and future use of point-of-care tests in primary care: an international survey in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK and the USA

              Objective Despite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice). Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Primary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Participants Primary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians). Main measures We asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently). Results 2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness. Conclusions Primary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJGP Open
                BJGP Open
                bjgpoa
                bjgpoa
                BJGP Open
                Royal College of General Practitioners (London )
                2398-3795
                January 2018
                27 October 2017
                27 October 2017
                : 1
                : 4
                : bjgpopen17X101193
                Affiliations
                [1 ] deptGP, PhD Student, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ] deptGP, Postdoctoral Researcher, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [3 ] deptGP, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Family Medicine , CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [4 ] deptSenior House Officer, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [5 ] deptGP, Professor of Primary Care , Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [6 ] deptGP, Professor of Primary Care, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [7 ] deptPostdoctoral Researcher, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Article
                01121
                10.3399/bjgpopen17X101193
                6181107
                30564689
                dd991f0b-a6ed-4eff-b7d4-eeee0870f28f
                Copyright © The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

                History
                : 26 January 2017
                : 18 May 2017
                Categories
                Research

                child,c-reactive protein,point-of-care testing,respiratory tract infections,primary health care,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article