RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development over time of the use of C-reactive protein (CRP) and rapid streptococcal detection test (RADT) point-of-care tests (POCT) in Danish general practice and to explore associations between patient characteristics and POCT use (i.e. CRP and RADT). DESIGN AND SETTINGS: A register-based study including all general practice clinic consultations in daytime and out-of-hours (OOH) settings in Denmark between 2003 and 2018. SUBJECTS: All citizens who had at least one clinic consultation in daytime or OOH general practice within the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the total and relative use of CRP and RADT POCTs and described the development over time. Crude and adjusted proportion ratios (PRs) were calculated to explore associations between patient characteristics and POCT use. RESULTS: Overall, the relative use of CRP POCTs increased. At OOH, a steep increase was noticed around 2012. The relative use of RADT decreased. Patient age 40-59 years and existing comorbidity were significantly associated with a higher use of CRP testing in both settings. A significantly lower use of CRP testing was found for patients with higher educational level. We found a significantly higher use of RADT testing for patients aged 0-19 years and with higher household educational level, whereas comorbidity was associated with a lower use of RADT testing. CONCLUSION: The use of CRP POCT increased over time, whereas the use of RADT POCT decreased. Perhaps the success of implementing CRP as a tool for reducing antibiotic use has reached it limit. Future studies should focus on how and when POCT are used most optimal.Key pointsCRP POC tests and RADT POCTs are frequently used diagnostic tools in general practice, both in daytime and in the out-of-hours setting.There was an increased use of CRP POCTs, particularly in out-of-hours general practice, whereas the use of RADT POCTs declined between 2003 and 2018.CRP POCTs were associated with age of 40-59 years and co-morbidity, while the use of RADT was mostly associated with younger age.
Asunto(s)
Atención Posterior , Medicina General , Humanos , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria , Proteína C-Reactiva/análisis , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , DinamarcaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the current rate of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in Australian general practice with the recommendations in the most widely consulted therapeutic guidelines in Australia (Therapeutic Guidelines). DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of general practice activity data for April 2010 - March 2015 (derived from Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health [BEACH] study) with estimated rates of prescribing recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rates and estimated guideline-recommended rates per 100 encounters and per full-time equivalent (FTE) GP per year for eight ARIs; number of prescriptions nationally per year. RESULTS: An estimated mean 5.97 million (95% CI, 5.69-6.24 million) ARI cases per year were managed in Australian general practice with at least one antibiotic, equivalent to an estimated 230 cases per FTE GP/year (95% CI, 219-240 cases/FTE/year). Antibiotics are not recommended by the guidelines for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis (current prescribing rate, 85%) or influenza (11%); they are always recommended for community-acquired pneumonia (current prescribing rate, 72%) and pertussis (71%); and they are recommended for 0.5-8% of cases of acute rhinosinusitis (current prescribing rate, 41%), 20-31% of cases of acute otitis media (89%), and 19-40% cases of acute pharyngitis or tonsillitis (94%). Had GPs adhered to the guidelines, they would have prescribed antibiotics for 0.65-1.36 million ARIs per year nationally, or at 11-23% of the current prescribing rate. Antibiotics were prescribed more frequently than recommended for acute rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, acute otitis media, and acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics are prescribed for ARIs at rates 4-9 times as high as those recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines. Our data provide the basis for setting absolute targets for reducing antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Medicina General/estadística & datos numéricos , Prescripción Inadecuada/estadística & datos numéricos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Aguda , Australia , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Atención Primaria de Salud , Derivación y Consulta , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/clasificaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The daily work of community pharmacists includes dispensing antibiotics, but little is known about how this should be done to ensure quality use of antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: To define specific tasks of the community pharmacist when dispensing antibiotics and to assess to what extent these tasks can be implemented in practice in Europe. METHODS: A Delphi study with community pharmacist experts in the European Economic Area. Statements on potential tasks for pharmacists during the antibiotic dispensing process were based on a systematic literature review. Participants rated the statements for importance and feasibility of implementation in practice in 3 rounds on a scale from 1 to 9. Consensus of importance was defined as ≥ 80 % of experts rating a statement between 7 and 9. An online expert meeting was conducted between rounds 1 and 2. Scores for all statements were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 38 experts from 21 countries participated in the study. Experts reached consensus on 108 statements within 5 themes: 1) collaboration with prescribers, 2) checking prescriptions and dispensing, 3) counselling, 4) education, and 5) pharmacy services. Potential tasks included advising and collaborating with prescribers, performing safety checks, and having access to specific prescription information. Additionally, pharmacists should counsel patients related to the dispensed antibiotic and on antimicrobial resistance and infectious diseases. With few exceptions, pharmacists should not dispense antibiotics without prescriptions or prescribe antibiotics. Consensus on feasibility of implementation was only reached for statements in the categories "counselling patients" and "education". Barriers to changing practice included structure of the healthcare system, resistance to change from prescribers or pharmacy staff, lack of time and finances, legal barriers, and patient expectations. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists have an important role when dispensing antibiotics. This study provides important steps towards better community pharmacy antibiotic dispensing practices throughout the EEA.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Servicios Comunitarios de Farmacia , Técnica Delphi , Farmacéuticos , Rol Profesional , Humanos , Farmacéuticos/organización & administración , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Servicios Comunitarios de Farmacia/organización & administración , Femenino , Europa (Continente) , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Pautas de la Práctica FarmacéuticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The health and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance (in Australia is significant. Interventions that help guide and improve appropriate prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in the community represent an opportunity to slow the spread of resistant bacteria. Clinicians who work in primary care are potentially the most influential health care professionals to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance, because this is where most antibiotics are prescribed. METHODS: A cluster randomised trial was conducted comparing two parallel groups of 27 urban general practices in Queensland, Australia: 13 intervention and 14 control practices, with 56 and 54 general practitioners (GPs), respectively. This study evaluated an integrated, multifaceted evidence-based package of interventions implemented over a 6-month period. The evaluation included quantitative and qualitative components, and an economic analysis. RESULTS: A multimodal package of interventions resulted in a reduction of 3.81 prescriptions per GP per month. This equates to 1280.16 prescriptions for the 56GPs in the intervention practices over the 6-month period. The cost per prescription avoided was A$148. The qualitative feedback showed that the interventions were well received by the GPs and did not impact on consultation time. Providing GPs with a choice of tools might enhance their uptake and support for antimicrobial stewardship in the community. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal package of interventions to enhance rational prescribing of antibiotics is effective, feasible and acceptable in general practice. Investment in antimicrobial stewardship strategies in primary care may ultimately provide the important returns for public health into the future.