Literature DB >> 28357510

Tracking unnecessary negative urinalyses to reduce healthcare costs: a transversal study.

A Malmartel1, M Dutron2, C Ghasarossian2.   

Abstract

About 7 million urinalyses are reimbursed yearly by the French public healthcare system, but the results of most of these tests are normal. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of negative urinalyses in ambulatory care, identify the associated factors and assess the relevance of prescriptions by general practitioners (GPs) according to French guidelines. A cross-sectional study was conducted in patients over 18 coming for urinalyses in two French ambulatory laboratories. Patients received a questionnaire on their symptoms, the reason for performing urinalysis and the use of urinary dipsticks. GP who prescribed urinalyses received a questionnaire assessing their practice. A total of 510 patients were included, and 71% of urinalyses were negative. Urinalyses were prescribed to 283 patients by GPs. Compared to those of specialists, GP prescriptions were associated with fewer negative urinalyses (59 vs 86%; p < 0.01). Among the negative urinalyses prescribed by GPs, the reasons of prescription were as follows: suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) (42.7%), control of bacteriological cure after UTI (24%), fever or abdominal pain (13%) and routine test (7%). About 35% of urinalyses were not indicated according to guidelines. Only 12% of patients used dipsticks before performing urinalysis although 87% of GPs were favourable to their use if they were provided by healthcare services. The annual cost of non-indicated urinalyses is estimated at 13 million euro. A systematic use of dipsticks provided by healthcare services could help to reduce health costs and the unnecessary use of antibiotics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bacteriological Cure; Healthcare Service; Urinary Dipstick; Urinary Symptom; Urinary Tract Infection

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28357510     DOI: 10.1007/s10096-017-2968-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0934-9723            Impact factor:   3.267


  4 in total

1.  Managing UTI in primary care: should we be sending midstream urine samples?

Authors:  Alastair D Hay
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Can urine dipstick testing for urinary tract infection at point of care reduce laboratory workload?

Authors:  H D Patel; S A Livsey; R A Swann; S S Bukhari
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 3.  Does this woman have an acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection?

Authors:  Stephen Bent; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; David L Simel; Stephan D Fihn; Sanjay Saint
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002 May 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Epidemiology of urinary tract infections, bacterial species and resistances in primary care in France.

Authors:  A Malmartel; C Ghasarossian
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.267

  4 in total
  1 in total

1.  Analysis of Paper-Based Colorimetric Assays With a Smartphone Spectrometer.

Authors:  Elizabeth V Woodburn; Kenneth D Long; Brian T Cunningham
Journal:  IEEE Sens J       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 3.301

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.