Increased demand of urine cultures from Danish general practice: a five-year register-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise and explore the development in the number and content of urine samples sent from general practice in the North Denmark Region to the Department of Clinical Microbiology (DCM) at Aalborg University Hospital during a five-year period. DESIGN: A register-based study. SETTING: General practice. SUBJECTS: Urine samples received at DCM, Aalborg University Hospital from general practice between 2017 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and content of urine samples. RESULTS: A total of 255,271 urine samples from general practice were received at DCM, with 76.1% being from female patients. Uropathogens were identified in 43.0% of the samples. During the five-year period, a 23.0% increase in the number of urine samples per person (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.21-1.25) was observed. A slight increase in the proportion of positive cultures (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05) was seen. No notable change in the patient population (age, gender) was observed. Overall, Escherichia coli was the most identified uropathogen (60.4%) followed by Klebsiella spp. (8.7%) and Enterococcus spp. (7.7%). Distribution of the various uropathogens differed slightly depending on patient gender and age, importantly E. coli was less frequently observed in males aged >65 years. CONCLUSION: During the past five years an increasing amount of urine cultures have been requested at DCM from general practice. Importantly, the cause(s) of this increasing demand needs to be explored further in future studies.

Appropriate diagnostics of urinary tract infections can reduce the use of antibiotics in general practice.From 2017 to 2022 a 23% increase per person in requested urine cultures from general practice was observed.A slight increase in positive cultures was found, but no notable change in the patient population (age, gender) was seen.E. coli was the most identified uropathogen independent of gender and age, however, the proportion differed within the various groups.

Use and quality of point-of-care microscopy, urine culture and susceptibility testing for urinalysis in general practice.

Objective: To describe the use and quality of point-of-care (POC) microscopy, urine culture and susceptibility testing performed in general practice in Northern Denmark from 2013 to 2018.Design: Descriptive studySetting: General practices receiving a fee for examining urine samples.Subjects: Simulated urine samples containing uropathogenic bacteria distributed by the organisation for improvement of microbiological quality (MIKAP).Main outcome measures: Percentage of use and correct answers for microscopy, culture and susceptibility testing.Results: A total of 5361 samples were analysed by the use of microscopy (39.7%), culture (66.0%) and/or susceptibility testing (76.5%). For culture, Flexicult SSI urinary kittm (87.6%) demonstrated the highest percentage of correct answers followed by chromogenic agar (85.1%) and 2-plate dipslide (85.2%). Mueller Hinton agar with tablets had the highest percentage of correct answers for susceptibility testing of most bacterial strains (84.6%), followed by Flexicult (77.2%). Furthermore, susceptibility testing with tablets (range: 76.1-84.6%) was found to be more accurate than discs (range: 72.9-75.5%). Overall, the highest percentage of correct answers was obtained when examining urine samples containing Escherichia coli: Microscopy (78.3%), culture (87.0%) and susceptibility testing (range: 84.3-90.7%).Conclusion: The quality of POC testing in general practice was high when examining urine samples containing the most common uropathogen E. coli. Surprisingly, susceptibility testing was more frequently used than culture. This approach may compromise the treatment decision as only cultures contribute with information about the flora composition and bacterial quantification. Interestingly, microscopy was the least used method even though the result may be reached within a few minutes.Key pointsThe quality of POC tests (microscopy, urine culture, susceptibility testing) performed in general practice was high when examining urine containing E. coli, whereas difficulties were observed for samples including S. saprophyticus or K. pneumoniae.Susceptibility testing was more often performed than urine culture, which indicates a problem as only urine cultures contribute with information about the flora composition and bacterial quantification.

Introducing point-of-care ultrasound in Danish general practice-elucidating the use through a medical audit.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is increasingly used across the medical field. PoCUS is also being implemented in general practice despite a lack of clinical guidelines and training programs for general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to elucidate the employment of PoCUS by Danish GPs following a short training program. METHODS: Thirty GPs were enrolled in a short ultrasound training program and taught how to perform 22 selected scanning modalities. In the following 3 months, the GPs registered all performed PoCUS examinations according to the Audit Project Odense method. After 5 months, the GPs were invited to participate in an evaluation seminar, where questionnaires were distributed. RESULTS: During the registration period, 1598 patients were examined with PoCUS. A total of 1948 scanning modalities were registered, including 207 examinations outside the taught curriculum. The majority of the ultrasound examinations were performed within 10 minutes (89%), most were considered to be conclusive (87%) and/or to increase diagnostic certainty (67%), whereas one in four examinations entailed a change in patient management. Most GPs attending the evaluation seminar continued to use PoCUS and found the scanning modalities included in the course curriculum relevant in their daily work. CONCLUSION: The GPs found several indications for performing PoCUS following the attendance of a 2-day basic training program. The majority of examinations were registered to be conclusive and/or increase diagnostic certainty. However, few GPs used PoCUS on a daily basis and not all examinations were registered to have an impact on patient care.

Prescribing antibiotics: the use of diagnostic tests in general practice. A register-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess (i) the pattern of antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice, (ii) the use of diagnostic tests [point-of-care (POC) and tests analysed at the hospital laboratory (laboratory tests)], and (iii) the frequency of diagnostic testing in relation to antibiotic prescriptions. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional register-based study. SETTING: General practice in a geographical area of Denmark covering 455,956 inhabitants. SUBJECTS: We studied redeemed antibiotic prescriptions and performed diagnostic tests in general practice from 2013 to 2017 among inhabitants in nine selected municipalities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of antibiotic courses. Frequency and type of diagnostic testing performed in relation to types of antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 783,252 antibiotic courses were redeemed from general practice with an overall decrease of 19% during 2013-2017. Diagnostic testing increased by 6% during this period. POC tests comprised the majority of performed diagnostic tests (83%) with C-reactive protein (CRP) as the most frequently used test. A 27% increase in the use of laboratory tests was observed. Tests were performed in relation to 43% of all antibiotic courses; most in relation to prescriptions for sulphonamide and trimethoprim (57%) and rarely when prescribing tetracyclines (10%). Conflicting with national guidelines, Danish GPs prescribed fluoroquinolones without performing any kind of diagnostic testing in 48% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of the use of diagnostic tests in relation to antibiotics and creates basis for further research into the variability between types of antibiotics. The study indicates that there is room for improvement to use diagnostic tests as an aid to promote prudent antibiotic use.KEY POINTSDiagnostic tests (point-of-care or tests analysed at the hospital laboratory), can increase diagnostic certainty and lead to a reduction in antibiotic use in general practice.A decrease in antibiotic courses in general practice in Denmark was observed during 2013-2017, while the use of diagnostic tests increased.A diagnostic test was performed in relation to 43% of antibiotic courses.Only 52% of prescribed fluoroquinolones was related to a diagnostic test, conflicting with national guidelines.

Prescription of antibiotics to children with acute otitis media in Danish general practice.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common and most often self-limiting infection in childhood, usually managed in general practice. Even though antibiotics are only recommended when certain diagnostic and clinical criteria are met a high antibiotic prescription rate is observed. The study's objective was to analyse associations between patient- and general practitioner (GP) characteristics and antibiotic prescribing for children with AOM in an effort to explain the high antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS: All general practices in the Northern, Southern and Central regions of Denmark were invited to record symptoms, examinations, findings and antibiotic treatment for all children ≤7 years of age diagnosed with AOM during a four-week winter period in 2017/2018. Associations were analysed by means of multivariate logistic regressions. The study design was cross-sectional. RESULTS: GPs from 60 general practices diagnosed 278 children with AOM of whom 207 (74%) were prescribed antibiotics, most often penicillin V (60%). About half of the children had tympanometry performed. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied considerably between practices (0-100%). Antibiotic prescribing was associated with fever (odds ratio (OR) 3.69 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-7.05), purulent ear secretion (OR 2.35 95% CI 1.01-5.50) and poor general condition (OR 3.12 95% CI 1.31-7.46), and the practice's antibiotic prescribing rate to other patients with symptoms of an acute respiratory tract infection (OR 2.85 CI 95% 1.07-7.60) and specifically to other children with AOM (OR 4.15 CI 95% 1.82-9.47). CONCLUSION: GPs' antibiotic prescribing rates for children with AOM vary considerably even considering the of signs, symptoms, request for antibiotics, and use of tympanometry. Interventions to reduce overprescribing should be targeted high-prescribing practices.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Danish GPs' and practice nurses' management of acute sore throat and adherence to guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a frequent presentation of acute respiratory tract infections in general practice. Though these infections are often harmless and self-limiting, antibiotics are frequently prescribed. In Denmark, practice nurses manage an increasing part of patients with acute minor illnesses. OBJECTIVES: We aimed (i) to investigate Danish practice nurses' and GPs' management of patients presenting with a sore throat and (ii) to explore to what extent management is according to current Danish guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during winter 2017, involving GPs and practice nurses in Danish general practices. Patients with a sore throat were registered according to the Audit Project Odense method. RESULTS: A total of 44 practices participated with the registration of 1503 patients presenting with a sore throat. Most patients had a strep A test performed, especially when managed by a practice nurse (84.6% versus 61.8%, χ2 = 90.1, P < 0.05). In total, 40.6% of performed strep A tests were not according to guideline recommendations. Antibiotics were prescribed for about one-third of patients, regardless whether managed by a practice nurse or a GP (χ2 = 0.33, P = 0.57). However, 32.4% of these prescriptions were not in line with Danish guidelines. CONCLUSION: Patients with acute sore throat were managed similarly by GPs and practice nurses, apart from a higher use of strep A tests in patients seen by practice nurses. Importantly, this study demonstrated that there is still room for improvement of the management of these patients in Danish general practice.

Quality assessment in general practice: diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate areas in need of quality improvement within the diagnostic process and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in Danish general practice by using quality indicators (QIs). DESIGN AND SETTING: During a 4-week period in winter 2017, a prospective registration of patients diagnosed with RTIs was conducted in general practice in two regions of Denmark. SUBJECTS: Throughout the registration period each patient with symptoms of an RTI was registered. Information about age, symptoms and findings, duration of symptoms, the use and result of clinical tests, allergy towards penicillin, referral to secondary care and the antibiotic given were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Values and acceptable ranges for QIs focusing on the diagnostic process, the decision to prescribe antibiotics and the choice of antibiotics for patients with RTIs. RESULTS: Regarding the diagnostic process nearly all QIs for patients diagnosed with acute pharyngotonsillitis and pneumonia fell within the acceptable range. Contrarily, the diagnostic QIs for patients with acute otitis media and acute rhinosinusitis were outside the acceptable range. All indicators designed to measure overuse of antibiotics were outside the acceptable range and nearly all indicators assessing if patients were sufficiently treated fell within the acceptable range. QIs assessing use of the recommended type of antibiotic were only within the acceptable range for patients diagnosed with acute pharyngotonsillitis. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate an overuse of antibiotics for RTIs in Danish general practice. Especially management of acute rhinosinusitis and acute bronchitis should be targeted in future quality improvement projects. KEY POINTS: To improve antibiotic prescribing in general practice it is important to focus on both the diagnostic process and the prescribing patterns. The findings indicate an overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections in Danish general practice. Especially the diagnostic process and antibiotic prescribing patterns for acute rhinosinusitis and acute bronchitis could benefit from future quality improvement interventions.

Identifying practice-related factors for high-volume prescribers of antibiotics in Danish general practice.

Objectives: In Denmark, general practice is responsible for 75% of antibiotic prescribing in the primary care sector. We aimed to identify practice-related factors associated with high prescribers, including prescribers of critically important antibiotics as defined by WHO, after accounting for case mix by practice. Methods: We performed a nationwide register-based survey of antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice from 2012 to 2013. The unit of analysis was the individual practice. We used multivariable regression analyses and an assessment of relative importance to identify practice-related factors driving high antibiotic prescribing rates. Results: We included 98% of general practices in Denmark ( n = 1962) and identified a 10% group of high prescribers who accounted for 15% of total antibiotic prescriptions and 18% of critically important antibiotic prescriptions. Once case mix had been accounted for, the following practice-related factors were associated with being a high prescriber: lack of access to diagnostic tests in practice (C-reactive protein and urine culture); high use of diagnostic tests (urine culture and strep A throat test); a low percentage of antibiotic prescriptions issued over the phone compared with all antibiotic prescriptions; and a high number of consultations per 1000 patients. We also found that a low number of consultations per 1000 patients was associated with a reduced likelihood of being a high prescriber of antibiotics. Conclusions: An apparent underuse or overuse of diagnostic tests in general practice as well as organizational factors were associated with high-prescribing practices. Furthermore, the choice of antibiotic type seemed less rational among high prescribers.

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections in general practice: a RAND Appropriateness Method.

OBJECTIVE: To develop quality indicators for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections, tailored to the Danish general practice setting. DESIGN: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. SETTING: General practice. SUBJECTS: A panel of nine experts, mainly general practitioners, was asked to rate the relevance of 64 quality indicators for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections based on guidelines. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to resolve misinterpretations and to achieve consensus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The experts were asked to rate the indicators on a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus of appropriateness for a quality indicator was reached if the overall panel median rating was 7-9 with agreement. RESULTS: A total of 50 of the 64 proposed quality indicators attained consensus. Consensus was achieved for 12 indicators focusing on the diagnostic process and 19 indicators focusing on the decision about antibiotic treatment and choice of antibiotics, respectively. CONCLUSION: These newly developed quality indicators may be used to strengthen Danish general practitioners' focus on their management of patients with acute respiratory tract infections and to identify where there is a need for future quality improvements.

Clinical indications for antibiotic use in Danish general practice: results from a nationwide electronic prescription database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability and applicability of clinical indications from electronic prescriptions on antibiotic use in Danish general practice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort register-based study including the Danish National Prescription Register. SETTING: Population-based study of routine electronic antibiotic prescriptions from Danish general practice. SUBJECTS: All 975,626 patients who redeemed an antibiotic prescription at outpatient pharmacies during the 1-year study period (July 2012 to June 2013). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of prescriptions per clinical indication. Number of antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 inhabitants by age and gender. Logistic regression analysis estimated the association between patient and provider factors and missing clinical indications on antibiotic prescriptions. RESULTS: A total of 2.381.083 systemic antibiotic prescriptions were issued by Danish general practitioners in the study period. We identified three main clinical entities: urinary tract infections (n = 506.634), respiratory tract infections (n = 456.354) and unspecified infections (n = 416.354). Women were more exposed to antibiotics than men. Antibiotic use was high in children under 5 years and even higher in elderly people. In 32% of the issued prescriptions, the clinical indication was missing. This was mainly associated with antibiotic types. We found that a prescription for a urinary tract agent without a specific clinical indication was uncommon. CONCLUSION: Clinical indications from electronic prescriptions are accessible and available to provide an overview of drug use, in casu antibiotic prescriptions, in Danish general practice. These clinical indications may be further explored in detail to assess rational drug use and congruence with guidelines, but validation and optimisation of the system is preferable.

Antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice 2004-13.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic consumption in the primary care sector is often perceived as synonymous with consumption in general practice despite the fact that few countries stratify the primary care sector by providers' medical specialty. We aimed to characterize and quantify antibiotic use in Danish general practice relative to the entire primary care sector. METHODS: This was a registry-based study including all patients who redeemed an antibiotic prescription between July 2004 and June 2013 at a Danish community pharmacy. Antibiotic use was expressed as DDDs and treatments/1000 inhabitants/day (DIDs and TIDs, respectively) and assessed according to antibiotic spectrum (narrow versus broad) and their anatomical therapeutic classification codes in total as well as in six age groups. RESULTS: The contribution of general practice to the entire antibiotic use in the primary care sector declined during the study period (TIDs, 79%-75%; DIDs, 77%-73%). Antibiotic use in general practice increased 8% when expressed as DIDs, while a 9% decrease was observed when expressed as TIDs. The use of broad-spectrum agents increased while narrow-spectrum agents decreased. The decline in antibiotic use was most prominent in children aged <5 years, while elderly patients were increasingly prescribed antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Using the entire primary care sector as a proxy for general practice prescribing is imprecise. Antibiotic use in general practice is at a stable high level, but DID and TID analyses show different trends and both should be applied when detailing changes in antibiotic consumption. While children are prescribed fewer narrow-spectrum agents, the observed increase in the use of broad-spectrum agents is worrisome and should be addressed in future interventions.

General Practitioner Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme Study (GAPS): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong link between antibiotic consumption and the rate of antibiotic resistance. In Australia, the vast majority of antibiotics are prescribed by general practitioners, and the most common indication is for acute respiratory infections. The aim of this study is to assess if implementing a package of integrated, multifaceted interventions reduces antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in general practice. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised trial comparing two parallel groups of general practitioners in 28 urban general practices in Queensland, Australia: 14 intervention and 14 control practices. The protocol was peer-reviewed by content experts who were nominated by the funding organization. This study evaluates an integrated, multifaceted evidence-based package of interventions implemented over a six month period. The included interventions, which have previously been demonstrated to be effective at reducing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections, are: delayed prescribing; patient decision aids; communication training; commitment to a practice prescribing policy for antibiotics; patient information leaflet; and near patient testing with C-reactive protein. In addition, two sub-studies are nested in the main study: (1) point prevalence estimation carriage of bacterial upper respiratory pathogens in practice staff and asymptomatic patients; (2) feasibility of direct measures of antibiotic resistance by nose/throat swabbing. The main outcome data are from Australia's national health insurance scheme, Medicare, which will be accessed after the completion of the intervention phase. They include the number of antibiotic prescriptions and the number of patient visits per general practitioner for periods before and during the intervention. The incidence of antibiotic prescriptions will be modelled using the numbers of patients as the denominator and seasonal and other factors as explanatory variables. Results will compare the change in prescription rates before and during the intervention in the two groups of practices. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with the general practitioners and practice staff (practice nurse and/or practice manager) from the intervention practices on conclusion of the intervention phase to assess the feasibility and uptake of the interventions. An economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the costs of implementing the package, and its cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per unit reduction in prescribing. DISCUSSION: The results on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of this package of interventions will inform the policy for any national implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The GAPS trial is registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, reference number: ACTRN12615001128583 (registered 26/10/2015).

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care. DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. We included studies with a description of the development of QIs for diagnosis and antibiotic use in patients with infectious diseases in primary care. We extracted information about (1) type of infection; (2) target for quality assessment; (3) methodology used for developing the QIs; and (4) whether the QIs were developed for a national or international application. The QIs were organised into three categories: (1) QIs focusing on the diagnostic process; (2) QIs focusing on the decision to prescribe antibiotics; and (3) QIs concerning the choice of antibiotics. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in this review and a total of 130 QIs were identified. The majority (72%) of the QIs were focusing on choice of antibiotics, 22% concerned the decision to prescribe antibiotics, and few (6%) concerned the diagnostic process. Most QIs were either related to respiratory tract infections or not related to any type of infection. A consensus method (mainly the Delphi technique), based on either a literature study or national guidelines, was used for the development of QIs in all of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of existing QIs predominantly focuses on the choice of antibiotics and is often drug-specific. There is a remarkable lack of diagnostic QIs. Future development of new QIs, especially disease-specific QIs concerning the diagnostic process, is needed. KEY POINTS In order to improve the use of antibiotics in primary care, measurable instruments, such as quality indicators, are needed to assess the quality of care being provided. A total of 11 studies were found, including 130 quality indicators for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care. The majority of the identified quality indicators were focusing on the choice of antibiotics and only a few concerned the diagnostic process. All quality indicators were developed by means of a consensus method and were often based on literature studies or guidelines.

Parents' beliefs and knowledge about the management of acute otitis media: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is a common reason for antibiotic prescribing, despite strong evidence that antibiotics provide minimal benefit. Studies have demonstrated that patients' (or parents') expectations of antibiotics often influence general practitioners' (GPs) decision to prescribe antibiotics, but few have explored parents' expectations of the management of infections in children, or which factors influence the development of these expectations. This study aimed to explore parents' knowledge and beliefs about the management of acute otitis media in children. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 parents of children who had recently presented to their GP with acute otitis media. Parents were recruited at childcare centres or playgroups in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: Many parents did not have an accurate understanding of what causes acute otitis media. GPs were primarily consulted for the management of symptoms such as pain and fever. Others specifically wanted reassurance or were concerned about hearing loss. Most parents assumed that antibiotics were the best treatment option. Parents' perceptions about the best treatment were mainly based on their previous experience and the advice of the GP. Pain relief medications, such as paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were not considered by parents to be sufficient treatment on their own. CONCLUSION: There is discrepancy between parents' beliefs and expectations of management of acute otitis media and the evidence-based recommendations. This study provides insights into parents' expectations of management of acute otitis media, which may help inform clinicians about perceptions and misperceptions that may be valuable to elicit and discuss.

The effect of focused lung ultrasonography on antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections in Danish general practice: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (PLUS-FLUS).

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotics is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and is considered a major threat to global health. In Denmark, approximately 75% of antibiotic prescriptions are issued in general practice, with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) being one of the most common indications. Adults who present to general practice with symptoms of acute LRTI often suffer from self-limiting viral infections. However, some patients have bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a potential life-threatening infection, that requires immediate antibiotic treatment. Importantly, no single symptom or specific point-of-care test can be used to discriminate the various diagnoses, and diagnostic uncertainty often leads to (over)use of antibiotics. At present, general practitioners (GPs) lack tools to better identify those patients who will benefit from antibiotic treatment. The primary aim of the PLUS-FLUS trial is to determine whether adults who present with symptoms of an acute LRTI in general practice and who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care are treated less frequently with antibiotics than those who only receive usual care. METHODS: Adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to general practice with acute cough (< 21 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspects a bacterial CAP, will be invited to participate in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. All participants will receive usual care. Subsequently, participants will be randomized to either the control group (usual care) or to an additional focused lung ultrasonography performed by the GP (+ FLUS). The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with antibiotics prescribed at the index consultation (day 0). Secondary outcomes include comparisons of the clinical course for participants in groups. DISCUSSION: We will examine whether adults who present with symptoms of acute LRTI in general practice, who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care, have antibiotics prescribed less frequently than those given usual care alone. It is highly important that a possible reduction in antibiotic prescriptions does not compromise patients' recovery or clinical course, which we will assess closely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06210282. Registered on January 17, 2024.

Development of quality indicators for the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections in general practice: a RAND appropriateness method.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of quality indicators for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of adult patients with suspected urinary tract infections in general practice. DESIGN: A Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used. SETTING: Danish general practice. SUBJECTS: A panel of nine experts, mainly general practitioners, was asked to rate the relevance of 27 preliminary quality indicators. The set of indicators was based on the most recent Danish guidelines for the management of patients with suspected urinary tract infection. An online meeting was held to resolve misinterpretations and achieve consensus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The experts were asked to rate the indicators on a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus of appropriateness was reached if the overall panel median rating was 7-9 with agreement. Agreement was defined as: no more than one expert rated the indicator outside the three-point region (1-3, 4-6 and 7-9) containing the median. RESULTS: A total of 23 of the 27 proposed quality indicators attained consensus. One additional indicator was proposed by the panel of experts, leading to a final set of 24 quality indicators. All indicators focusing on the diagnostic process achieved consensus of appropriateness, while the experts agreed on three quarters of the proposed quality indicators concerning either the treatment decision or the choice of antibiotics. CONCLUSION: This set of quality indicators may be used to strengthen general practice's focus on the management of patients with a possible urinary tract infection and to identify potential quality problems.

Misconceptions and Knowledge Gaps on Antibiotic Use and Resistance in Four Healthcare Settings and Five European Countries-A Modified Delphi Study.

Misconceptions and knowledge gaps about antibiotics contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to identify and prioritize misconceptions and knowledge gaps about antibiotic use from a healthcare professionals' perspective. A modified Delphi study with a predefined list of statements, two questionnaire rounds, and an expert meeting was conducted. The statements were rated by healthcare professionals from France, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain, and from general practice, out-of-hour services, nursing homes, and pharmacies. A total of 44 pre-defined statements covered the following themes: (1) antimicrobial resistance in general, (2) use of antibiotics in general, (3) use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections, and (4) use of antibiotics for urinary tract infections. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement between the professionals during the second Delphi round. For 30% of the statements, professionals from the four settings together reached consensus. In each setting individually, at least 50% of the statements reached consensus, indicating that there are still many misconceptions and knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. Six educational tools (leaflets, posters, checklists) were developed to address the knowledge gaps and misconceptions. These can be used by patients and healthcare professionals to improve the use of antibiotics in practice.

Initial symptoms and three months follow-up after acute COVID-19 in outpatients: An international prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on long-term follow-up of patients with COVID-19 focused on hospitalised patients. No prospective study with structured follow-up has been performed in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess long-COVID and post-COVID (WHO definition: symptomatic at least 12 weeks), describe lingering symptoms, their impact on daily activities, and general practice visits and explore risk factors for symptom duration in outpatients. METHODS: A prospective study of adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in 11 European countries, recruited during 2020 and 2021 from primary care and the community. Structured follow-up by phone interviews (symptom rating, symptom impact on daily activities and general practice visits) was performed at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12 by study personnel. Data was analysed descriptively by using correlation matrixes and Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 270 enrolled patients, 52% developed long-COVID and 32% post-COVID-syndrome. When only considering the presence of moderate or (very) severe symptoms at weeks 8 and 12, these percentages were 28% and 18%, respectively. Fatigue was the most often reported symptom during follow-up. The impact of lingering symptoms was most evident in sports and household activities. About half (53%) had at least one general practice contact during follow-up. Obese patients took twice as long to return to usual health (HR: 0.5, 95%CI: 0.3-0.8); no other risk profile could predict lingering symptoms. CONCLUSION: Long-COVID and post-COVID are also common in outpatients. In 32%, it takes more than 12 weeks to return to usual health.