Evaluation of telephone triage among chest pain patients in out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands (TRACE).

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is fully integrated in Dutch out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC). Patients presenting with chest pain are initially assessed according to a standardized protocol ("Netherlands Triage Standard" [NTS]). Nevertheless, little is known about its (diagnostic) performance, nor on the impact of subsequent clinical judgements made by triage assistants and general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the current NTS chest pain protocol. METHODS: Observational, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain who contacted a regional OOH-PC facility in the Netherlands, in 2017. The clinical outcome measure involved the occurrence of a "major event," which is a composite of all-cause mortality and urgent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular conditions, occurring ≤6 weeks of initial contact. We assessed the performance using diagnostic and discriminatory properties. RESULTS: In total, 1,803 patients were included, median age was 54.0 and 57.5% were female. Major events occurred in 16.2% of patients with complete follow-up, including 99 (6.7%) cases of acute coronary syndrome and 22 (1.5%) fatal events. NTS urgency assessment showed moderate discriminatory abilities for predicting major events (c-statistic 0.66). Overall, NTS performance showed a sensitivity and specificity of 83.0% and 42.4% with a 17.0% underestimated major event rate. Triage assistants' revisions hardly improved urgency allocation. Further consideration of the clinical course following OOH-PC contact did generate a more pronounced improvement with a sensitivity of 89.4% and specificity of 61.9%. CONCLUSION: Performance of telephone triage of chest pain appears moderate at best, with acceptable safety yet limited efficiency, even after including further work-up by GPs.

Performance of risk scores for coronary artery disease: a retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: Regional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact. RESULTS: A total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates. CONCLUSION: While available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.

Rationale and design of a cohort study evaluating triage of acute chest pain in out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands (TRACE).

The aims of this study are (1) to evaluate the performance of current triage for chest pain; (2) to describe the case mix of patients undergoing triage for chest pain; and (3) to identify opportunities to improve performance of current Dutch triage system for chest pain. Chest pain is a common symptom, and identifying patients with chest pain that require urgent care can be quite challenging. Making the correct assessment is even harder during telephone triage. Temporal trends show that the referral threshold has lowered over time, resulting in overcrowding of first responders and emergency services. While various stakeholders advocate for a more efficient triage system, careful evaluation of the performance of the current triage in primary care is lacking. TRiage of Acute Chest pain Evaluation in primary care (TRACE) is a large cohort study designed to describe the current Dutch triage system for chest pain and subsequently evaluate triage performance in regard to clinical outcomes. The study consists of consecutive patients who contacted the out-of-hours primary care facility with chest pain in the region of Alkmaar, the Netherlands, in 2017, with follow-up for clinical outcomes out to August 2019. The primary outcome of interest is 'major event', which is defined as the occurrence of death from any cause, acute coronary syndrome, urgent coronary revascularization, or other high-risk diagnoses in which delay is inadmissible and hospitalization is necessary. We will evaluate the performance of the triage system by assessing the ability of the triage system to correctly classify patients regarding urgency (accuracy), the proportion of safe actions following triage (safety) as well as rightfully deployed ambulances (efficacy). TRACE is designed to describe the current Dutch triage system for chest pain in primary care and to subsequently evaluate triage performance in regard to clinical outcomes.

Acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care: who needs antibiotics? An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute infective conjunctivitis is a common problem in primary care, traditionally managed with topical antibiotics. A number of clinical trials have questioned the benefit of topical antibiotics for patients with acute infective conjunctivitis. AIM: To determine the benefit of antibiotics for the treatment of acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care and which subgroups benefit most. DESIGN: An individual patient data meta-analysis. METHOD: Relevant trials were identified and individual patient data gathered for meta-analysis and subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Three eligible trials were identified. Individual patient data were available from all primary care trials and data were available for analysis in 622 patients. Eighty per cent (246/308) of patients who received antibiotics and 74% (233/314) of controls were cured at day 7. There was a significant benefit of antibiotics versus control for cure at seven days in all cases combined (risk difference 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.01 to 0.14). Subgroups that showed a significant benefit from antibiotics were patients with purulent discharge (risk difference 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.17) and patients with mild severity of red eye (risk difference 0.10, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.18), while the type of control used (placebo drops versus nothing) showed a statistically significant interaction (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Acute conjunctivitis seen in primary care can be thought of as a self-limiting condition, with most patients getting better regardless of antibiotic therapy. Patients with purulent discharge or a mild severity of red eye may have a small benefit from antibiotics. Prescribing practices need to be updated, taking into account these results.

Do general practitioners adhere to the guideline on infectious conjunctivitis? Results of the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 1996 the guideline 'The Red Eye' was first published by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. The extent to which general practitioners adhere to this guideline is unclear. Recently, data on the management of infectious conjunctivitis by general practitioners became available from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. We measured the age-specific incidence of infectious conjunctivitis, described its management by Dutch general practitioners, and then compared these findings with the recommendations made in the guideline. METHODS: In 2001, over a 12-month period, data from all patient contacts with 195 general practitioners were taken from electronic medical records. Registration was episode-oriented; all consultations dealing with the same health problem were grouped into disease episodes. Data concerning all episodes of infectious conjunctivitis (ICPC-code F70 and sub codes) were analysed. RESULTS: Over one year, 5,213 new and recurrent episodes of infectious conjunctivitis were presented to general practitioners from a population of N = 375,899, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 13.9 per 1000 person-years, varying from more than 80/1000 py in children up to one-year old, to less than 12/1000 py in children over the age of 4. Topical ophthalmic ointments were prescribed in 87% of the episodes, of which 80% was antibiotic treatment. Fusidic acid gel was most frequently prescribed (69%). In most episodes general practitioners did not adhere to the guideline. CONCLUSION: In 2001, the management of infectious conjunctivitis by Dutch general practitioners was not in accordance with the recommendations of the consensus-based guideline published five years previously, despite its wide distribution. In 2006 this guideline was revised. Its successful implementation requires more than distribution alone. Probably the most effective way to achieve this is by following a model for systemic implementation.

The treatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis with fusidic acid: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute infectious conjunctivitis is a common disorder in primary care. Despite a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical antibiotics for the treatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis, most patients presenting in primary care with the condition receive topical antibiotics. In The Netherlands, fusidic acid is most frequently prescribed. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of fusidic acid gel compared to placebo for acute infectious conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-five Dutch primary care centres. METHOD: Adults presenting with a red eye and either (muco)purulent discharge or glued eyelid(s) were allocated to either one drop of fusidic acid gel 1% or placebo, four times daily during one week. The main outcome measure was the difference in recovery rates at 7 days. Secondary outcome measures were difference in bacterial eradication rates, a survival time analysis of the duration of symptoms, and the difference in recovery rates in culture-positive and culture-negative patients. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomised and 163 patients were analysed. Forty-five of the 73 patients in the treatment and 53 of the 90 patients in the placebo group recovered (adjusted risk difference = 5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI} = -11 to 18]). There was no difference between the median duration of symptoms in the two groups. At baseline, the prevalence of a positive bacterial culture was 32% (58/181). The bacterial eradication rate was 76% in the treatment and 41% in the placebo group (risk difference = 35% [95% CI = 9.3 to 60.4]). In culture positive patients, the treatment effect tended to be strong (adjusted risk difference = 23% [95% CI = -6 to 42]). CONCLUSION: At 7 days, cure rates in the fusidic acid gel and placebo group were similar, but the confidence interval was too wide to clearly demonstrate their equivalence. These findings do not support the current prescription practices of fusidic acid by GPs.

Predicting bacterial cause in infectious conjunctivitis: cohort study on informativeness of combinations of signs and symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To find an efficient set of diagnostic indicators that are optimally informative in the diagnosis of a bacterial origin of acute infectious conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Cohort study involving consecutive patients. Results of index tests and reference standard were collected independently from each other. SETTING: 25 Dutch health centres. PARTICIPANTS: 184 adults presenting with a red eye and either (muco)purulent discharge or glued eyelid(s), not wearing contact lenses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability of a positive bacterial culture, given different combinations of index test results; area under receiver operating characteristics curve. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis showed optimal diagnostic discrimination for the combination of early morning glued eye(s), itch, and a history of conjunctivitis. The first of these indicators increased the likelihood of a bacterial cause, whereas the other two decreased it. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for this combination of symptoms was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.80). The overall prevalence of bacterial involvement of 32% could be lowered to 4% or raised to 77%, depending on the pattern of index test results. CONCLUSION: A bacterial origin of complaints indicative of acute infectious conjunctivitis can be made much more likely or unlikely by the answers to three simple questions posed during clinical history taking (possibly by telephone). These results may have consequences for more targeted prescription of ocular antibiotics.