Qualitative study on shared decision making in cystitis management in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Cystitis are commonly treated with antibiotics, although non-antibiotic options could be considered for healthy non-pregnant women. Shared decision making (SDM) can be used in cystitis management to discuss the various treatment options but is not frequently applied in general practice. AIM: Identifying barriers and facilitators for applying SDM in cystitis management in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative explorative research in general practice with healthcare professionals (HCPs; general practitioners (GPs) and GP assistants) and healthy non-pregnant women with a recent history of cystitis (patients). METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and October 2022. We applied a combination of thematic and framework analysis. RESULTS: Ten GPs, seven GP assistants, and fifteen patients were interviewed. We identified three main barriers and one key facilitator: 1) applying SDM is deemed inefficient; 2) HCPs presume that patients expect antibiotic treatment and some HCPs consider non-antibiotic treatment inferior; 3) Patients are largely unaware of the various non-antibiotic treatment options for cystitis; 4) HCPs recognise some benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management, including reduced antibiotic use and improved patient empowerment, and patients appreciate involvement in treatment decisions, but preferences for SDM vary. CONCLUSION: SDM is infrequently applied in cystitis treatment in general practice due to the current efficient cystitis management, HCPs' perceptions, and patient unawareness. Nevertheless, both HCPs and patients recognise the long-term benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management. Our findings facilitate the development of tailored interventions to increase the application of SDM which should be co-created with HCPs and patients and fit into the current efficient cystitis management.

Improving antibiotic prescribing quality in out-of-hours primary care: a mixed-methods study using participatory action research.

Background: During out-of-hours (OOH) primary care, GPs overprescribe antibiotics for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Many interventions have been shown to improve antibiotic prescribing quality, but their implementation in practice remains difficult. Participatory action research (PAR) aims to explore, implement and evaluate change in practice with an active involvement of local stakeholders, while generating knowledge through experience. Objectives: To evaluate whether PAR improves antibiotic prescribing quality for RTIs during OOH primary care and simultaneously identify the pivotal lessons learned. Methods: A mixed-methods study with a PAR approach in three OOH GP cooperatives (GPCs). Each GPC co-created a multifaceted intervention focusing on improving antibiotic use for RTIs through plan-do-study-act cycles. We quantified antibiotic prescribing quality indicators and formulated the lessons learned from a qualitative process analysis. Results: Interventions were chosen with the GPs and adapted to be context-relevant. The willingness to work on quality and engagement of local stakeholders led to ownership of the project, but was time-consuming. In one GPC, antibiotic prescribing significantly decreased for tonsillitis, bronchitis, otitis media and acute upper RTI. In all three GPCs, use of guideline-recommended antibiotics for otitis media significantly increased. Conclusions: Implementing multifaceted interventions through PAR can lower total and increase guideline-recommended antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in OOH primary care. Co-creating interventions with GPs to suit local needs is feasible, but reaching all GPs targeted is challenging.

Clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: An observational study of respiratory tract infection in primary care in the early phase of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly. OBJECTIVES: To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs' management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In April 2020-March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16-2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7-9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5-3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8-4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%. CONCLUSION: Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to primary care for influenza-like-illness: economic evaluation alongside the randomised controlled ALIC4E trial in 15 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries. METHODS: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed. RESULTS: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1-€35 per patient). CONCLUSION: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective.

Safety netting advice for respiratory tract infections in out-of-hours primary care: A qualitative analysis of consultation videos.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) use safety netting advice to communicate with patients when and how to seek further help when their condition fails to improve or deteriorate. Although many respiratory tract infections (RTI) during out-of-hours (OOH) care are self-limiting, often antibiotics are prescribed. Providing safety netting advice could enable GPs to safely withhold an antibiotic prescription by dealing both with their uncertainty and the patients' concerns. OBJECTIVES: To explore how GPs use safety netting advice during consultations on RTIs in OOH primary care and how this advice is documented in the electronic health record. METHODS: We analysed video observations of 77 consultations on RTIs from 19 GPs during OOH care using qualitative framework analysis and reviewed the medical records. Videos were collected from August until November 2018 at the Antwerp city GP cooperative, Belgium. RESULTS: Safety netting advice on alarm symptoms, expected duration of illness and/or how and when to seek help is often lacking or vague. Communication of safety netting elements is scattered throughout the end phase of the consultation. The advice is seldom recorded in the medical health record. GPs give more safety netting advice when prescribing an antibiotic than when they do not prescribe an antibiotic. CONCLUSION: We provided a better understanding of how safety netting is currently carried out in OOH primary care for RTIs. Safety netting advice during OOH primary care is limited, unspecific and not documented in the medical record.

Clinical presentation, microbiological aetiology and disease course in patients with flu-like illness: a post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial data.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence about the relationship between aetiology, illness severity, and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid in the development of effective management strategies for these infections. AIM: To investigate whether clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTIs where a viral pathogen was detected and those where a potential bacterial pathogen was found. DESIGN AND SETTING: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with flu-like illness in primary care (n = 3266) in 15 European countries. METHOD: Patient characteristics and their signs and symptoms of disease were registered at baseline. Nasopharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relationship between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline, and course of disease including complications. RESULTS: Except for a less prominent congested nose (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.65) in patients with flu-like illness in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology compared with those with a viral aetiology. Also, course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology. CONCLUSION: Given current available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics such as COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with flu-like illness seems to have limited value. A wait-and-see policy in most of these patients with flu-like illness seems the best option.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the primary care consultations for acute respiratory infections during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an eight-country qualitative study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' and clinicians' perceptions of healthcare-seeking behaviour and delivery of care is unclear. The pandemic accelerated the use of remote care, and understanding its benefits and drawbacks may inform its implementation during current and future healthcare emergencies. AIM: To explore patients' and primary care professionals' (PCPs) experiences of primary care delivery in the first wave of the pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in primary care in eight European countries (England, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and Germany). METHOD: A total of 146 interviews were conducted with 80 PCPs and 66 patients consulting for respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms, in eight European countries. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: It was found that patients accepted telemedicine when PCPs spent time to understand and address their concerns, but a minority preferred in-person consultations. PCPs felt that remote consultations created emotional distance between themselves and patients, and they reported having to manage diverse COVID-19-related medical and social concerns. CONCLUSION: Remote consultations for RTI symptoms may be acceptable long term if both groups are happy to use this format, but it is important that PCPs take time to address patients' concerns and provide safety-netting advice.

How accurate is telephone triage in out-of-hours care? An observational trial in real patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in Belgium needing out-of-hours medical care have two options: the emergency department (ED) or a general practitioner (GP) on call. Currently, there is no triage system in Belgium, so patients do not know where they should go. However, patients who could be managed by a GP frequently present themselves at an ED without referral. GPs often organise themselves in a General Practitioners Cooperative (GPC). This study assesses the accuracy of a newly developed telephone triage guideline. METHODS: Observational real-time simulation: all walk-in patients at two GPCs and three EDs were asked to call a triage telephone number with their current medical problem. The operator handling this call registered an urgency level and a resource (ED, GP or ambulance) to deploy. The treating physician's opinion was used a the gold standard for correct triage. Patients were not informed about the outcome of the triage and continued the standard care path they had chosen. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the telephone triage for detecting patients who could be managed by a GP was 82% with a specificity of 53%. The correctness of the advice given by the operator according to the physicians was 71%, with 12% underestimation of urgency and 17% overestimation. At the GPC, the sensitivity for detecting patients requiring GP management/care was 91% with a specificity of 36%. At the ED, the sensitivity for detecting GP patients was 67% with a specificity of 48%. CONCLUSION: This study evaluates a new guideline for telephone triage, showing potential overtriage for patients wanting to attend the GPC, with possible inefficiency, and potential undertriage for patients wanting to attend the ED, with possible safety issues.

Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Between-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection (RTI) in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence. AIM: To describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs' prescribing confidence. DESIGN & SETTING: Prospective audit in 18 European countries. METHOD: An audit of GP-registered patient, clinical, and management characteristics for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n = 4982), and GPs' confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision. Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression. RESULTS: Antibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably: <20% in four countries, and >40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in point-of-care (POC) testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, and Romania, and >65% in Denmark and Norway, mainly for C-reactive protein [CRP] and group A streptococcal [strep A] infection), and in laboratory or hospital-based testing (<3% in Hungary, the Netherlands, and Spain, and >30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever, and country, but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision. CONCLUSION: Despite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

Antibiotic Prescribing Trends in Belgian Out-of-Hours Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Health Data.

Antibiotic overprescribing is one of the main drivers of the global and growing problem of antibiotic resistance, especially in primary care and for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). RTIs are the most common reason for patients to consult out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way general practitioners (GPs) work, both during office hours and OOH. In Belgian OOH primary care, remote consultations with the possibility of issuing prescriptions and telephone triage were implemented. We aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19 on GPs' antibiotic prescribing during OOH primary care. In an observational study, using routinely collected health data from GP cooperatives (GPCs) in Flanders, we analyzed GPs' antibiotic prescriptions in 2019 (10 GPCs) and 2020 (20 GPCs) during OOH consultations (telephone and face-to-face). We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modeling to identify any changes after lockdowns were implemented. In total, 388,293 contacts and 268,430 prescriptions were analyzed in detail. The number of antibiotic prescriptions per weekend, per 100,000 population was 11.47 (95% CI: 9.08-13.87) or 42.9% lower after compared to before the implementation of lockdown among all contacts. For antibiotic prescribing per contact, we found a decrease of 12.2 percentage points (95% CI: 10.6-13.7) or 56.5% among all contacts and of 5.3 percentage points (95% CI: 3.7-6.9) or 23.2% for face-to-face contacts only. The decrease in the number of prescriptions was more pronounced for cases with respiratory symptoms that corresponded with symptoms of COVID-19 and for antibiotics that are frequently prescribed for RTIs, such as amoxicillin (a decrease of 64.9%) and amoxicillin/clavulanate (a decrease of 38.1%) but did not appear for others such as nitrofurantoin. The implementation of COVID-19 lockdown measures coincided with an unprecedented drop in the number of antibiotic prescriptions, which can be explained by a decrease in face-to-face patient contacts, as well as a lower number of antibiotics prescriptions per face-to-face patient contact. The decrease was seen for antibiotics used for RTIs but not for nitrofurantoin, the first-choice antibiotic for urinary tract infections.

Antibiotic Prescribing and Doctor-Patient Communication During Consultations for Respiratory Tract Infections: A Video Observation Study in Out-of-Hours Primary Care.

Objective: Communication skills can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, which could help to tackle antibiotic resistance. General practitioners often overestimate patient expectations for an antibiotic. In this study, we describe how general practitioners and patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) communicate about their problem, including the reason for encounter and ideas, concerns, and expectations (ICE), and how this relates to (non-)antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. Methods: A qualitative descriptive framework analysis of video-recorded consultations during OOH primary care focusing on doctor-patient communication. Results: We analyzed 77 videos from 19 general practitioners. General practitioners using patient-centered communication skills received more information on the perspective of the patients on the illness period. For some patients, the reason for the encounter was motivated by their belief that a general practitioner (GP) visit will alter the course of their illness. The ideas, concerns, and expectations often remained implicit, but the concerns were expressed by the choice of words, tone of voice, repetition of words, etc. Delayed prescribing was sometimes used to respond to implicit patient expectations for an antibiotic. Patients accepted a non-antibiotic management plan well. Conclusion: Not addressing the ICE of patients, or their reason to consult the GP OOH, could drive assumptions about patient expectations for antibiotics early on and antibiotic prescribing later in the consultation.

Supporting Primary Care Professionals to Stay in Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Views on Personal Risk and Access to Testing During the First Wave of Pandemic in Europe.

Background: Minimising primary care professionals' (PCPs) risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to ensure their safety as well as functioning health care system. PCPs' perspectives on the support they needed in the early stages of a public health crisis can inform future preparedness. Aim: To understand PCPs' experiences of providing care during the COVID-19 pandemic, with focus on personal risk from COVID-19 and testing. Design and Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with PCPs in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece and Sweden, between April and July 2020. Method: Interviews were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. Results: Eighty interviews were conducted, showing that PCPs tried to make sense of their risk of both contracting and severity of COVID-19 by assessing individual risk factors and perceived effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They had limited access to PPE yet continued providing care as their "duty." Some PCPs felt that they were put in high-risk situations when patients or colleagues were not flagging symptoms of COVID-19. Not having access to testing in the initial stages of the pandemic was somewhat accepted but when available, was valued. Conclusion: Access to adequate PPE and testing, as well as training for staff and education for patients about the importance of ensuring staff safety is crucial. Given PCPs' varied response in how they appraised personal risk and their tolerance for working, PCPs may benefit from the autonomy in deciding how they want to work during health emergencies.

Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings. SETTING: Primary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Before (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Consultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described. RESULTS: Care for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

Transformation of primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences of healthcare professionals in eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of patient care and gatekeeper to secondary care. Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly focused on secondary care. AIM: To gain an understanding of the experiences of European primary care professionals (PCPs) working during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews in primary care in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece, and Sweden, between April and July 2020. METHOD: Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Eighty interviews were conducted with PCPs. PCPs had to make their own decisions on how to rapidly transform services in relation to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care. Despite being overwhelmed with guidance, they often lacked access to practical training. Consequently, PCPs turned to their colleagues for moral support and information to try to quickly adjust to new ways of working, including remote care, and to deal with uncertainty. CONCLUSION: PCPs rapidly transformed primary care delivery despite a number of challenges. Representation of primary care at policy level and engagement with local primary care champions are needed to facilitate easy and coordinated access to practical information on how to adapt services, ongoing training, and access to appropriate mental health support services for PCPs. Preservation of autonomy and responsiveness of primary care are critical to preserve the ability for rapid transformation in any future crisis of care delivery.

Performance of a new guideline for telephone triage in out-of-hours services in Belgium: A pilot study using simulated patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients in Belgium needing out-of-hours care have two options: the emergency department or the general practitioner on call often organised in a general practitioner cooperative. Currently, there is no triage system in Belgium so patients do not know where to go. METHODS: Our primary objective was to examine the ability of a newly developed telephone guideline, called 1733, to adequately estimate the urgency of health problems presented by simulated patients. Ten clinical vignettes were presented to 12 operators in a simulated phone call. The operators had to assign a protocol, urgency level and resource to dispatch (ambulance, general practitioner house visit, etc.) to each case. RESULTS: A total of 120 phone calls were analysed. The operators chose the right protocol in 69% and the correct urgency level in 35% of the cases. The proportion of under- and over-triage was 26% and 39%, respectively. There was important variation in between the operators. The sensitivity for detecting highly urgent cases was 0.42, the specificity 0.92. CONCLUSION: Using the new Belgian 1733 guideline for telephone triage, operators mostly chose the appropriate protocol but only chose the correct urgency in one out of three cases. In this phase of development, the studied telephone guideline is not ready for implementation.

Understanding General Practitioners' Antibiotic Prescribing Decisions in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Video-Elicitation Interview Study.

Infections are the most common reason why patients consult out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. Too often there is an overprescribing of antibiotics for self-limiting infections and general practitioners (GPs) do not always choose the guideline recommended antibiotics. To improve antibiotic prescribing quality, a better understanding is needed of the (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions of GPs. This study sets out to unravel GPs' (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions in OOH primary care. We video-recorded 160 consultations on infections during OOH primary care by 21 GPs and performed video-elicitation interviews with each GP. GPs reflected on their decision-making process and communication while watching their consultation. A qualitative thematic analysis was used. GPs found that their (non) antibiotic prescribing decision-making was not only based on objective arguments, but also subconsciously influenced by their own interpretation of information. Often GPs made assumptions (about for example the patients' reason for encounter or expectations for antibiotics) without objectifying or verifying this with the patient. From the beginning of the consultation GPs follow a dichotomous thinking process: urgent versus not urgent, viral versus bacterial, antibiotics versus no antibiotics. Safety-netting is an important but difficult tool in the OOH care context, with no long-term follow-up or relationship with the patient. GPs talk about strategies they use to talk about diagnostic uncertainty, what patients can expect or should do when things do not improve and the difficulties they encounter while doing this. This video- elicitation interview study provides actionable insights in GPs' (non) antibiotic prescribing decisions during OOH consultations on infections.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.