D McLeod1, M Kljakovic. 1. Department of General Practice, Wellington School of Medicine.
Abstract
AIM: The primary aim of the study was to examine whether the results of laboratory investigations of midstream urine samples from patients with suspected urinary tract infection influenced management by general practitioners. METHOD: Eleven general practitioners in the Network participated in the study by recording treatment and outcomes for consecutive patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection. RESULTS: Data from 216 patients were included in the study. Dipsticks were used to test the urine of 98 patients (45%) and midstream urine samples were sent to the laboratory for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 95% of patients with symptoms of dysuria, frequency and urgency. Where the laboratory results showed infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioners received the results for 75 patients (85%). Among those patients where the laboratory reported no infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioner received the results for 53 patients (87%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of laboratory investigation of midstream urine samples did not change the treatment provided for the majority of patients in the study.
AIM: The primary aim of the study was to examine whether the results of laboratory investigations of midstream urine samples from patients with suspected urinary tract infection influenced management by general practitioners. METHOD: Eleven general practitioners in the Network participated in the study by recording treatment and outcomes for consecutive patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection. RESULTS: Data from 216 patients were included in the study. Dipsticks were used to test the urine of 98 patients (45%) and midstream urine samples were sent to the laboratory for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 95% of patients with symptoms of dysuria, frequency and urgency. Where the laboratory results showed infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioners received the results for 75 patients (85%). Among those patients where the laboratory reported no infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioner received the results for 53 patients (87%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of laboratory investigation of midstream urine samples did not change the treatment provided for the majority of patients in the study.