To prescribe or not to prescribe for paediatric sore throat: a retrospective cohort study comparing clinician-led antibiotic prescriptions to FeverPAIN and Centor scoring in a tertiary paediatric emergency department and a national review of practice.

BACKGROUND: Tonsillopharyngitis is a common presentation to paediatric emergency departments (PEDs). FeverPAIN (FP) and Centor scoring systems are recommended in the UK to help delineate bacterial aetiology, despite being primarily evidenced in adult populations. We investigate how the use of FP or Centor compares to actual clinician practice in guiding antibiotic prescription rates in PED. We establish current national practice in English PEDs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of tonsillopharyngitis presentations to a tertiary PED in January-February 2020. Investigators retrospectively assigned each patient FP and Centor scores using documented symptoms. We compared antibiotic prescription rates guided by FP/Centor against the actual rate prescribed by clinicians, and assessed agreement between these strategies using kappa analysis. We contacted 153 English emergency departments to establish national practice. RESULTS: We identified 632 consecutive patients aged 6 months to 15 years. Actual clinician-prescribed antibiotics numbered 116 (18.4%). Prescriptions predicted by FP score numbered 124 (19.6%) and Centor 112 (17.7%). Kappa (K) analysis indicated only moderate agreement between clinician choice versus FP (K=0.434) and clinician choice versus Centor (K=0.476). This was similar for cohorts aged under and over 3 years.National practice was reportedly heterogeneous, with 70 emergency departments (45.8%) not employing a specific system. CONCLUSION: Current guidance is variably interpreted and inconsistently implemented in paediatric populations. FeverPAIN and Centor scoring systems may not rationalise antibiotics as much as previously reported compared with judicious clinician practice. Producing clear paediatric-specific national guidelines, especially for under-5s who are omitted from NICE sore throat guidance, may help further rationalise and standardise antibiotic use in paediatric tonsillopharyngitis.

Developing an international register of clinical prediction rules for use in primary care: a descriptive analysis.

PURPOSE: We describe the methodology used to create a register of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care. We also summarize the rules included in the register according to various characteristics. METHODS: To identify relevant articles, we searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed) for the years 1980 to 2009 and supplemented the results with searches of secondary sources (books on clinical prediction rules) and personal resources (eg, experts in the field). The rules described in relevant articles were classified according to their clinical domain, the stage of development, and the clinical setting in which they were studied. RESULTS: Our search identified clinical prediction rules reported between 1965 and 2009. The largest share of rules (37.2%) were retrieved from PubMed. The number of published rules increased substantially over the study decades. We included 745 articles in the register; many contained more than 1 clinical prediction rule study (eg, both a derivation study and a validation study), resulting in 989 individual studies. In all, 434 unique rules had gone through derivation; however, only 54.8% had been validated and merely 2.8% had undergone analysis of their impact on either the process or outcome of clinical care. The rules most commonly pertained to cardiovascular disease, respiratory, and musculoskeletal conditions. They had most often been studied in the primary care or emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical prediction rules have been derived, but only about half have been validated and few have been assessed for clinical impact. This lack of thorough evaluation for many rules makes it difficult to retrieve and identify those that are ready for use at the point of patient care. We plan to develop an international web-based register of clinical prediction rules and computer-based clinical decision support systems.

Training doctors to manage patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) are now the norm in clinical practice, and place an increasing burden on the healthcare system. Management of these patients is challenging, and requires doctors who are skilled in the complexity of multiple chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature to ascertain whether there are education and training formats which have been used to train postgraduate medical doctors in the management of patients with multimorbidity in primary and/or secondary care, and which have been shown to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or patient outcomes. METHODS: Overall, 75,110 citations were screened, of which 65 full-text articles were then independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers, and two studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. RESULTS: The two included studies implemented and evaluated multimorbidity workshops, and highlight the need for further research addressing the learning needs of doctors tasked with managing patients with multimorbidity in their daily practice. CONCLUSION: While much has been published about the challenges presented to medical staff by patients with multimorbidity, published research regarding education of doctors to manage these problems is lacking. Further research is required to determine whether there is a need for, or benefit from, specific training for doctors to manage patients with multimorbidity. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004010.