OBJECTIVE: Near-patient tests are promoted for guiding management of common infections in primary care with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of prescribing decisions and containing antimicrobial resistance. Changes in clinical practice should be based on appraisals of the factors that might influence change, viewed from the perspective of those expected to implement the change. We therefore explored the views of general practitioners concerning the possible introduction of near-patient tests for managing common infections. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic content analysis. SETTING: General practices in south-east Wales, UK. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 general practitioners (GPs) from high fluroquinolone antibiotics prescribing practices and 14 GPs from practices that prescribed fluroquinolones close to the south-east Wales mean. RESULTS: There was strong enthusiasm for a hypothetical near-patient, finger-prick blood tests that could distinguish viral from bacterial infections. Many GPs emphasized that such tests would be valuable in "selling" decisions not to prescribe antibiotics to patients. Concerns included limited additional useful information to guide prescribing above clinical diagnosis alone, that patients might deteriorate even if the tests correctly identified a viral aetiology, and that GPs would need to be convinced by research evidence supporting uptake. Several indicated that tests would be useful only for a limited number of patients and they were concerned by time pressures, apparatus maintenance and quality control, cost, and possible objections from patients, especially children. CONCLUSIONS: Despite GP enthusiasm for the concept of a rapid test to distinguish viral from bacterial infection, strategies to promote uptake would be enhanced if concerns were addressed regarding the importance and feasibility of such tests in daily practice.
OBJECTIVE: Near-patient tests are promoted for guiding management of common infections in primary care with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of prescribing decisions and containing antimicrobial resistance. Changes in clinical practice should be based on appraisals of the factors that might influence change, viewed from the perspective of those expected to implement the change. We therefore explored the views of general practitioners concerning the possible introduction of near-patient tests for managing common infections. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic content analysis. SETTING: General practices in south-east Wales, UK. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 general practitioners (GPs) from high fluroquinolone antibiotics prescribing practices and 14 GPs from practices that prescribed fluroquinolones close to the south-east Wales mean. RESULTS: There was strong enthusiasm for a hypothetical near-patient, finger-prick blood tests that could distinguish viral from bacterial infections. Many GPs emphasized that such tests would be valuable in "selling" decisions not to prescribe antibiotics to patients. Concerns included limited additional useful information to guide prescribing above clinical diagnosis alone, that patients might deteriorate even if the tests correctly identified a viral aetiology, and that GPs would need to be convinced by research evidence supporting uptake. Several indicated that tests would be useful only for a limited number of patients and they were concerned by time pressures, apparatus maintenance and quality control, cost, and possible objections from patients, especially children. CONCLUSIONS: Despite GP enthusiasm for the concept of a rapid test to distinguish viral from bacterial infection, strategies to promote uptake would be enhanced if concerns were addressed regarding the importance and feasibility of such tests in daily practice.
Authors: Patrick J P Poels; Tjard R J Schermer; Annelies Jacobs; Reinier P Akkermans; Joliet Hartman; Ben J A M Bottema; Chris van Weel Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Chris C Butler; Frank Dunstan; Margaret Heginbothom; Brendan Mason; Zoë Roberts; Sharon Hillier; Robin Howe; Stephen Palmer; Anthony Howard Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Evi Germeni; Julia Frost; Ruth Garside; Morwenna Rogers; Jose M Valderas; Nicky Britten Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Carl Llor; Silvia Hernández; Nuria Sierra; Ana Moragas; Marta Hernández; Carolina Bayona Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Kristin Alise Jakobsen; Hasse Melbye; Mark J Kelly; Christina Ceynowa; Sigvard Mölstad; Kerenza Hood; Christopher C Butler Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Caroline H D Jones; Jeremy Howick; Nia W Roberts; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Annette Plüddemann; Matthew Thompson Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 2.497