Evaluation of utilization and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: qualitative interviews with general practitioners from Germany.

BACKGROUND: The use and advantages of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for C-reactive protein (CRP) in general practice, especially for upper respiratory tract infections (uRTIs), have been studied extensively. However, there is limited knowledge about test indications, prerequisites, and integration of these tests into everyday practice. AIM: This study aims to investigate the attitudes and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) in Germany regarding the use of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs. The study places special emphasis on implementation in routine care, including testing procedures, feasibility, opportunities and barriers for specific consultation scenarios, as well as test indications and their impact on GP-patient communication. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interview study with 10 GPs (May/2023 to Aug/2023) METHOD: Ten German GPs who participated in an observational study on CRP-POCT use in general practices were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Audio recordings were transcribed and content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interviewed GPs stated that CRP-POCTs offer several advantages for various treatment cases. They improve diagnostic confidence and certainty of GPs' therapeutic decisions, and offer a broad spectrum of indications and application scenarios. Additionally, they have a positive impact on GP-patient communication, and their ease of use enables rapid implementation into existing workflows. On the other hand, CRP-POCT increase the time required for test performance and patient consultation. CONCLUSION: Due to the numerous benefits of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs, interviewed GPs have a favourable attitude towards their regular integration into everyday practice. Implementation barriers include increased time and personnel expenses for testing and inadequate reimbursement by German statutory health insurance.

Utilization and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: a real-world multicentre observational study with 1,740 patient cases in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for C-reactive protein can support clinical decision-making of general practitioners (GPs) but are not widely used in German general practices. AIM: To investigate the utilization of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs in routine primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Prospective observational study in 49 general practices in Germany (Nov/2022 to Apr/2023). METHOD: GPs were provided with CRP-POCTs and collected data for each CRP-POCT use using standardized data collection sheets. RESULTS: Data from 1,740 CRP-POCT uses were recorded. GPs employed CRP-POCTs mainly for patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs, 70.9% of all cases) and to a lesser extent for gastrointestinal infections (GIs, 10.3%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs were frequently used to distinguish between bacterial and viral aetiology (60.8%) and to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing (62.8%). In GIs, CRP-POCTs were mainly used to rule out severe disease progressions (53.2%) and for decisions on further diagnostic procedures (45.6%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs influenced antibiotic prescribing in 77.5 % of the cases (32.3% in favour vs. 45.2% waiver). In GIs, CRP levels mainly affected decisions on further diagnostic procedures. GPs reported that CRP-POCTs were helpful in 88.6% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: When available, German GPs predominantly use semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing in patients with RTI. CRP-POCT use improves clinical decision-making and increases the GPs' clinical confidence.

Changes to utilization and provision of health care in German GP practices during the COVID 19-pandemic: Protocol for a mixed methods study on the viewpoint of GPs, medical practice assistants, and patients.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, general practitioners (GPs) continued to be a main point of contact for patients. For GP practices, it was and still is a challenge to meet constantly changing requirements due to the various phases of the pandemic. The aim of the study is to explore retrospectively the subjective experience with supply and utilization of health care services from the perspective of general practitioners, medical practice assistants and patients, in particular regarding instances of underutilization of services for non-Covid related conditions, adjustments due to the pandemic, and the appropriateness of care. METHODS: The study is carried out within the RESPoNsE research practice network in three of Germany's federal states: Berlin, Brandenburg, and Thuringia (RESPoNsE-Research practice network east). The study follows a convergent mixed method design, and consists of the following sections: a) two anonymous paper-based questionnaires filled out by GPs and medical practice assistants (MPAs), at an interval of 12 to 18 months; b) in-depth qualitative interviews conducted among a subgroup of GPs and MPAs; c) anonymous paper-based questionnaires among patients of participating practices. The idea for the study was derived from discussions with the practice advisory board of the RESPoNsE network. The themes and issues to be explored in the surveys and interviews are developed and discussed in the practice advisory board, the patient advisory board, and with interested MPAs. The questionnaires will be analyzed descriptively, exploring the effect of demographic variables. Qualitative content analysis is used to analyze the data from the interviews and focus groups. DISCUSSION: The study focuses on the conditions of GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. A broad insight is provided as GPs and MPAs, as well as patients, are involved. It provides the opportunity to express needs and concerns. The results can support future discussions on lessons learned from the pandemic and necessary changes in health care delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00028095.

Treatment Changes in General Practice Patients With Chronic Mental Disorders Following a Psychiatric-Psychosomatic Consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a psychiatric-psychosomatic consultation can identify unmet treatment needs and improve treatment of patients with mental disorders in general practice. METHODS: In 40 primary care practices, 307 consecutive primary patients who met criteria for chronic mental disorders were assessed by a psychiatric-psychosomatic consultant. After random assignment, general practitioners (GPs) were informed for half of the patients about the results of the assessment and received recommendations on how to improve treatment. Changes in treatment and patient status were reevaluated after 6 months. RESULTS: Patients were mostly having depression, adjustment, or anxiety disorders, with 28.8% on sick leave. Contact with their respective GPs was longer than a year in 77.2% of cases. Patients had already received pharmacotherapy (60.9%), psychotherapeutic counseling by GPs themselves (27.7%), psychotherapy by specialists (73.9%), psychiatric outpatient care (57%), inpatient psychiatric treatment (12.1%), inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation (ie, specialized behavioral medicine facilities for patients with work problems; 41.4%), and a broad spectrum of other diagnostic and therapeutic measures. Newly recommended interventions included leisure activities (42%), a new specialist psychotherapy (37.5%), or inpatient psychosomatic treatment (15.3%). Most recommendations were agreed upon by the GP. Nevertheless, there was only a limited increase in therapeutic actions 6 months later, and no statistically significant improvement in the status of patients. CONCLUSION: General practitioners undertake a broad spectrum of therapeutic interventions in patients with chronic mental disorders. According to our results, additional psychiatric-psychosomatic consultations can intensify treatment but does not significantly change the general course of chronic mental disorders.