Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
BJGP Open
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
Research

Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries

Alike W van der Velden, Alma C van de Pol, Emily Bongard, Daniela Cianci, Rune Aabenhus, Anca Balan, Femke Böhmer, Valerija Bralić Lang, Pascale Bruno, Slawomir Chlabicz, Samuel Coenen, Annelies Colliers, Ana García-Sangenís, Hrachuhi Ghazaryan, Maciej Godycki-Ćwirko, Siri Jensen, Christos Lionis, Sanne R van der Linde, Lile Malania, Jozsef Pauer, Angela Tomacinschii, Akke Vellinga, Ihor Zastavnyy, Susanne Emmerich, Adam Zerda, Theo J Verheij, Herman Goossens and Christopher C Butler
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (2): BJGPO.2021.0212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0212
Alike W van der Velden
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: a.w.vandervelden@umcutrecht.nl
Alma C van de Pol
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Bongard
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniela Cianci
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rune Aabenhus
3 Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anca Balan
4 Balan Medfam SRL, Cluj Napoca, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Femke Böhmer
5 Institute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valerija Bralić Lang
6 Department of Family Medicine, Andrija Stampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pascale Bruno
7 Département de Santé Publique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Slawomir Chlabicz
8 Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samuel Coenen
9 Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Samuel Coenen
Annelies Colliers
9 Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ana García-Sangenís
10 Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hrachuhi Ghazaryan
11 Wigmore Clinic, Yerevan, Armenia
12 Yerevan State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maciej Godycki-Ćwirko
13 Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siri Jensen
14 The Antibiotic Centre for Primary Care, Department of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christos Lionis
15 Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Crete, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanne R van der Linde
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lile Malania
16 National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia
17 Amer Science Management LLC, Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jozsef Pauer
18 DRC Drug Research Centre, Balatonfüred, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angela Tomacinschii
19 University Clinic of Primary Medical Assistance, Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Chișinău, The Republic of Moldova
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Akke Vellinga
20 School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ihor Zastavnyy
21 NGO Academy of Family Medicine of Ukraine, Lviv, Ukraine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susanne Emmerich
22 Abbott Rapid Diagnostics Germany GmbH, Cologne, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Zerda
23 AMR Strategy & Development, Becton Dickinson and Co, North Carolina, NC, US
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theo J Verheij
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Theo J Verheij
Herman Goossens
24 Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher C Butler
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Between-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection (RTI) in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence.

Aim To describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs’ prescribing confidence.

Design & setting Prospective audit in 18 European countries.

Method An audit of GP-registered patient, clinical, and management characteristics for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n = 4982), and GPs' confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision. Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression.

Results Antibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably: <20% in four countries, and >40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in point-of-care (POC) testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, and Romania, and >65% in Denmark and Norway, mainly for C-reactive protein [CRP] and group A streptococcal [strep A] infection), and in laboratory or hospital-based testing (<3% in Hungary, the Netherlands, and Spain, and >30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever, and country, but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision.

Conclusion Despite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

  • primary health care
  • anti-bacterial agents
  • respiratory tract infections
  • diagnostics
  • C-reactive protein
  • group A streptococcus
  • GP
  • audit
  • confidence

How this fits in

A large between-country variation in antibiotic prescribing for RTI exists in European primary care. Despite huge variation in management variables, such as POC and laboratory or hospital-based diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, GPs expressed high confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decisions. Antibiotic prescribing was attributed to patient-related factors and country, but not convincingly to POC testing. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone.

Introduction

Sequential studies by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) have identified important between-country differences in the numbers and class of antibiotics used,1,2 and there is evidence that this variation is not warranted on clinical grounds.3 Despite antibiotic surveillance and stewardship programmes in many countries, these differences persist.4–7 Prudent use of antibiotics is fundamental to contain antimicrobial resistance, reduce unnecessary exposure of patients to its side effects, contain costs, and guide patients expecting antibiotics for common infectious syndromic illness.8–11

About 80%–90% of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, where overprescribing is common for RTI.12,13 Moreover, RTI is often of viral aetiology and self-limiting, making this condition the main target for improving the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions.14,15 Challenges facing prescribers include uncertainty about aetiology, unavailability of POC diagnostic testing to aid prescribing decisions, unfamiliarity with current guidelines, risk-adverse prescribing behaviour, and non-evidence based patients’ expectations about effectiveness of antibiotics.9,16–19 Additional influences include healthcare system and cultural factors.3,20,21

POC testing for RTI management has been introduced in primary care thus far mainly to identify a strep A throat infection,22 and to use the biomarker CRP to inform antibiotic prescribing for acute cough.23,24 These POC tests have been shown to decrease antibiotic prescribing for patients with sore throat and acute cough in clinical trials.22,25,26 Uptake of POC testing into national guidelines and clinical practice varies, but the extent to which this explains between-country differences in antibiotic prescribing is unknown.

A point-prevalence audit survey (PPAS) was conducted of GPs’ management of patients presenting with symptoms of an RTI in 18 European countries. This enabled the authors to: 1) describe between-country differences in management of RTI, with focus on antibiotic prescribing and the use of POC and laboratory or hospital-based diagnostics; and 2) to investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs’ confidence in their prescribing decisions.

Method

This was a PPAS of patient, clinical, and management characteristics of patients presenting with symptoms of an RTI in 18 European countries that differed with respect to healthcare organisation, antibiotic use, and income level (high, upper, and lower-middle). Data on presentation and management, including confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision, were anonymously registered by GPs. Patients were not informed, nor asked to provide informed consent as no personally identifiable information was collected. This procedure was approved by research ethics committees in all participating countries.

Setting

The PPAS was performed in an established European Primary Care Research Network (https://www.value-dx.eu https://www.value-dx.eu). The registration period was January and February 2020, and each national team was asked to involve practices to enable delivering 200–250 registrations per country. As a formal power analysis was not considered needed for an audit, it was assumed that this number would provide enough information to describe management and between-country variation.

Practice size (number of GPs working in the practice) and the national teams’ preference to ask GPs to register a pre-defined number of consultations,or during a short period, or the complete period resulted in a different number of practices involved per country: Armenia (n = 5), Belgium (n = 6), Croatia (n = 6), Germany (n = 2), Denmark (n = 20), Spain (n = 6), France (n = 18), Georgia (n = 5), Greece (n = 6), Hungary (n = 5), Ireland (n = 6), Moldova (n = 4), the Netherlands (n = 12), Norway (n = 18), Poland (n = 8), Romania (n = 5), Ukraine (n = 4), and the UK (n = 7).

Patients eligible for registration

GPs were instructed to sequentially register their consultations with patients of all ages with symptoms of either acute sore throat (duration <14 days) and/or acute cough (duration <28 days), and to not register patients with only nasal or ear symptoms.

Data

Data were entered directly during the consultation in an online data capture system, Research Online, or entered later using paper Case Report Forms (see Supplementary Appendix S1). Data registration covered the following: patient characteristics (age and comorbidity: cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory condition, diabetes, and other chronic condition); clinical presentation (fever, illness duration, and signs and symptoms); GPs’ measurements (temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure); diagnostic testing (POC, laboratory or hospital-based, and chest X-ray in the facility or hospital); prescribing (antibiotic, antiviral, inhaled medication, and antihistamine); advice provided; and referral to hospital. At the end of the consultation, being aware of the result of the POC test but unaware of the result of laboratory or hospital-based testing, GPs rated their level of confidence in their decision whether or not to prescribe antibiotics using a 5-point Likert scale. Unknown and missing data, which was <1% for each variable, was regarded as ‘no’ or ‘not present’, and both immediate and delayed prescribing were considered as antibiotic prescribing.

Analyses

Patient and management data are presented for the full sample as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and ranges, and by country .

Factors related to antibiotic prescribing were analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression analysis where country, use of strep A and/or CRP POC testing, illness severity, age, presence of any comorbidity, fever, and duration of illness were included as fixed effects. Practice was included as random effect to take into account that patients were nested within practices. The same analysis was performed for two subgroups: 1) patients with diagnoses of a throat infection (pharyngitis, tonsillitis, laryngitis, and peritonsillar abscess) with strep A testing as fixed effect; and 2) patients with a lower respiratory tract diagnosis (bronchiolitis, acute bronchitis, pneumonia,wheezing, and exacerbation) with CRP testing as fixed effect.

As the outcome for confidence in the antibiotic prescribing decision indicated low frequencies for the options moderately certain and (very) uncertain it was decided to collapse these into ‘less certainty’, and compare with consultations where GPs indicated both degrees of certainty ([very] certain). Factors related to less certainty were analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression analysis where country, diagnostic testing (none, any POC, any laboratory or hospital, and POC plus laboratory or hospital), illness severity, age, presence of any comorbidity, fever, antibiotic prescribing, patient request for an antibiotic, suspected viral aetiology, and unclear aetiology were included as fixed effects, and practice as random effect. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) for each variable with 95% CIs. The statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26) and SAS Enterprise Guide (version 7.13).

Results

A total of 4982 consultations of patients presenting with symptoms of an acute RTI were registered (from 211 in Norway to 355 in Armenia) between January and February 2020. Patients of all ages and with different comorbidities were registered. Their main symptoms, clinical assessments, severity rating, diagnoses, GPs’ confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision, provided advice, and hospital referral are shown in Supplementary Table S1. Country variation in these variables is provided in Supplementary Table S2. Influenza-like illness, pharyngitis, and bronchitis were the most frequently used diagnostic categories. Only 3.2% of patients were classified as having severe illness and 2.3% were referred to hospital. Nearly 80% of patients received advice regarding symptomatic treatment and nearly 40% were advised or prescribed to take days off work or school.

Diagnostic testing and medication prescribing for RTI

Figure 1 shows between-country differences in diagnostic testing and medication prescribing for RTI. POC testing (mainly CRP and/or strep A) was common in Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, and virtually absent in Belgium, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Moldova, and Romania. White blood cell differential counting was often done or requested in Norway, Ukraine, Greece, Croatia, and Moldova and hardly ever in Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. A chest X-ray was done at the facility or requested in the hospital for 7.2% of patients and for a high proportion of patients in Georgia (12.9% and 18.3%), Greece (1.7% and 29.8%), and Moldova (0% and 15.8%, Supplementary Table S2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. Country variation in point-of-care and laboratory or hospital-based diagnostic testing, and in medication prescribing for respiratory tract infection in primary care. AB = antibiotic. AH = antihistamine. AM = Armenia. AV = antiviral. BE = Belgium. DE = Germany. DK = Denmark. ES = Spain. FR = France. GE = Georgia. GR = Greece. HR = Croatia. HU = Hungary. IE = Ireland. INH = inhaled medication. LAB = laboratory or hospital-based. MD = Moldova. NL = the Netherlands. NO = Norway. O = other prescribed medication. PL = Poland. POC = point of care. UA = Ukraine. UK = United Kingdom.

The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics ranged from 18% (Belgium and Denmark) to >50% (Hungary and Ireland). Overall, 12.3% of patients requested an antibiotic prescription, ranging from <5% in Germany, Spain, and Croatia to >20% in Greece, Ireland, and Ukraine. Delayed antibiotic prescribing was highest in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, and Ukraine. Broad-spectrum penicillins were most often prescribed (29.0%), followed by co-amoxicillin/clavulanate (22.2%, with high prescribing in Armenia, France, Georgia, Croatia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine) and macrolides (19.7%, with high prescribing in Georgia, Greece, Croatia, Poland, and Romania). Narrow-spectrum penicillins (overall 12.0%) were mainly prescribed in Denmark, Norway, and the UK. Cephalosporins (overall 7.5%) were more frequently prescribed in Hungary and Ukraine. Antivirals were frequently prescribed in Georgia, Greece, Moldova, and Romania (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S2).

Factors associated with antibiotic prescribing

Established prognostic factors, such as illness severity, older age, presence of comorbidity, fever, and longer illness duration, were all associated with antibiotic prescribing (Table 1). In the full sample, having performed POC testing was not associated with antibiotic prescribing. Country was associated with antibiotic prescribing also when adjusted for aforementioned prognostic factors (see Supplementary Table S3), meaning that the differences in prescribing proportions between countries are not owing to country variation in case mix and POC testing.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Multivariable analysis of factors associated with antibiotic prescribing

When analysed by subgroup, antibiotics were less often prescribed for patients with lower RTI diagnoses when CRP POC testing was done (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.1, statistically not significant in this sample), while more often for patients with sore throat infection diagnoses when a strep A POC test was done (OR 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 4.3).

Confidence in the antibiotic prescribing decision

GPs were generally confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision; in 88% of consultations, they rated their level of confidence as (very) certain (Supplementary Table S1). Unadjusted data show that GPs expressed lower confidence when they prescribed an antibiotic for patients with a suspected viral or an unclear aetiology, both relatively small subgroups (Figure 2A). Confidence when prescribing an antibiotic was not higher at the end of the consultation when POC testing was used, and not lower when laboratory or hospital-based testing was requested (Figure 2B). Confidence when no antibiotic was prescribed was somewhat lower when POC and/or laboratory testing was used or requested. After adjusting for multiple variables, including country, less certainty was associated with moderate or severe illness (OR 1.9, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.4), POC testing (OR 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1 to 2.1), antibiotic prescribing (OR 3.3, 95% CI = 2.4 to 4.5), suspected viral aetiology (OR 2.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.4), and unclear aetiology (OR 7.1, 95% CI = 5.0 to 10.o) (data not shown). Supplementary Figure S1, displaying confidence per diagnosis, shows high confidence in the prescribing decision for pharyngitis and tonsillitis, and lower confidence for influenza-like illness and bronchitis.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2. Percentages of consultations by level of confidence in the antibiotic prescribing decision; A) split by suspected viral, bacterial, and unclear aetiology; and B) split by testing group. AB = antibiotic prescribed. –AB = no antibiotic prescribed. POC = point-of-care. LAB = laboratory or hospital-based. POC+LAB = point-of-care plus laboratory or hospital-based.

Discussion

Summary

This prospective 18-country audit of nearly 5000 primary care consultations for RTI confirms considerable variation in both the proportion and the class of antibiotics prescribed.6,7 There was also considerable variation in clinical assessments, POC, and laboratory or hospital-based testing, and in non-antibiotic prescriptions. However, GPs consistently expressed a high level of confidence in their decision whether or not to prescribe antibiotics. Antibiotic prescribing differences were explained most by country-level factors and individual illness severity, rather than whether or not POC testing was used.

Strengths and limitations

The strength of this study is the uniform, prospective data capture, implemented in many contrasting European countries, including some that have not previously been included in prospective international studies of RTI in primary care. The PPAS provides insight in various management variables and enables between-country comparisons. The anonymous, audit-type procedure of registering sequentially presenting patients avoided selection bias as to whom to register or not. Therefore, it is considered that the study population is a representative sample of patients presenting with RTI symptoms in the participating countries, without enrichment for patients with certain characteristics or management variables. Filling out the CRF could easily be done during or immediately after the consultation without practical constraints of informing patients and taking informed consent. Owing to this minimal study burden on GPs, the PPAS can easily and usefully be repeated to capture changes in care provision, which was done at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.27

Several weaknesses need to be considered. First, with respect to the generalisability of the results that have been presented at country level. Given the limited number of general practices participating in each country, outcomes might not represent primary care provided in the country. For instance, in Moldova, four practices in a university-linked primary care clinic participated, and these practices may have therefore been atypical. Second, concerning POC testing, heterogeneous data were dealt with. In some practices and/or countries, POC testing was not available, in some, GPs could choose whether or not to use the testing, while in others it was part of the guidelines. Whether POC testing was at the discretion of the GP, or not, the PPAS did provide an extensive dataset of consultations with and without POC testing and antibiotic prescribing. This allowed for comparing consultations with and without POC testing. This group-wise comparison indicated that overall confidence was not higher when POC had been used. However, reasons for deciding whether or not to perform a test and confidence before testing were not captured. Such information could have added to the understanding of the influence of performing a POC test on antibiotic prescribing and on changing confidence within the consultation. A Swedish study, for instance, indicated the influence of CRP testing on GPs’ degree of suspicion of pneumonia.28 Finally, the audit did not follow-up patients, so the clinical outcomes and hospital or laboratory-based test results were unknown. These data could have been helpful to determine whether GPs’ prescribing confidence was justified.

Comparison with existing literature

Several other studies have described the differences in numbers, types, and appropriateness of prescribed antibiotics between European countries.1,3,6,7,19,29,30 The prescribing proportion in the PPAS were not always congruent with the ranking in ECDC reports6,7 in which, for example, the Netherlands ranks lowest and Belgium considerably higher. However, overall antibiotic use is not only determined by the prescribing proportion, but also by the number of patients that yearly present to a GP, the denominator. In countries with a high threshold to consult the GP, fewer patients overall, but probably with relatively more severe illness, will present, as opposed to, for example, a country where all patients with RTI consult their GP for a sick note. The PPAS captured data from a pre-defined number of consultations per country and not on total numbers of consulting patients in the 2 months‘ registration period.

Variation in the use of POC testing for RTI has been described for practices and GPs within some countries,31 but not in a prospective multi-country study using the same data capture form.

Randomised controlled trials have found that strep A and CRP POC testing reduce antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation.4,22,25,26,32 However, pragmatic studies on the use of POC testing in general practice show smaller, often statistically non-significant effects.33 The routine care data captured in the audit pointed towards a different effect of CRP and strep A testing. CRP testing tended to decrease antibiotic prescribing and the non-significance might have been owing to using routine care data and/or the sample size. Strep A testing on the other hand was associated with higher antibiotic prescribing; testing might have been used to confirm an antibiotic prescribing decision. Although the PPAS was not designed to specifically investigate factors influencing antibiotic prescription, the results indicate that trial results need to be confirmed with data from routine primary care practice.

Implications for practice

Countries where POC testing is widely used, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, have lower antibiotic use compared with countries where POC testing is not widely implemented.34 However, this association is not necessarily causal. The PPAS highlighted a strong ‘country factor’ associated with antibiotic prescribing. This country factor is no doubt the product of many interacting factors, such as antibiotic prescribing levels before the implementation of POC testing, national prescribing guidelines, antimicrobial stewardship programmes, and culturally determined GP and patient-related factors.

GPs have high confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decisions, including when POC testing was not used or available. It can be questioned whether the confidently made yes-antibiotic prescribing decisions are correct, given that antibiotics were prescribed in 70% of patients with tonsillitis, 45% of patients with bronchitis, and 19% of patients with pharyngitis, which is higher than considered appropriate.13 In implementing POC testing in guidelines and primary care practice, this expressed confidence would support the advice to use POC testing when the GP is in doubt to increase their confidence in diagnosis and/or prescribing. Additionally, POC testing for RTI might have more impact as a standard antibiotic stewardship intervention implemented to safely deviate from a (confidently made) yes-antibiotic prescribing decision.

In conclusion, despite high confidence of GPs in their decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in primary care management of RTIs in European countries, with many GPs prescribing antibiotics more often than considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance antibiotic prescribing stewardship even in the face of GPs being confident in prescribing, if it can safely reverse an antibiotic prescribing decision made on clinical grounds alone. The PPAS is considered a valuable research tool and its country-specific information can aid in designing and implementing interventions for RTI management taking the country’s specific context into account.

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Innovative Medicine Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (grant number: 820755 [VALUE-Dx]).

Ethical approval

Regulatory approvals or waivers were sought at the following Research Ethics Committees: Medical Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Center Utrecht, the Netherlands; Ethics Committee of Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium; Health Research Authority London, UK; Bioethical Committee of the Medical University of Bialystok, Poland; The Danish National Committee of Health Research Ethics, Denmark; Institutional Review Board of the National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Georgia; Research Ethics Committee of the Irish College of General Practitioners, Ireland; Ethical Board of College of Physicians Cluj Napoca, Romania; Medical Research Council Scientific Research Ethics Committee, Hungary; Ethical Board of Academy of Family Medicine of Ukraine, Ukraine; Rostock University Medical Center Ethics Committee, Germany; Comitè Ètic d'Investigació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Spain; Clinical Research and Innovation Delegation of the University Hospital Nice, France; Ethical Committee at Yerevan State Medical University, Armenia; National Committee for Ethical Expertise Ministry of Heath, Labour and Social Protection of the Republic of Moldova, Moldova; Bioethics Committee University of Crete, Greece; Ethics Committee of the University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Croatia; Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research, Norway; and the Bioethics Committee at the Medical University of Lodz, Poland. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the 19 primary care research networks, their GPs, and teams for collaborating and registering in the point-prevalence audit survey. Roxanne Schaakxs is acknowledged for building the online data capture tool and for data management. The authors are grateful to Pia Touboul, Réka Pauer, Bernadett Kovács, Karen Farrell, Anna Kowalczyk, Michelle van Willige, Tycho van der Linde, Carl Llor, Ana Moragas, Alex Prats, Paata Imnadze, Ketevan Sidamonidze, Ekaterine Khmaladze, Ryan Arner, Vladyslav Odrynskyi, Irini Vasilaki, Myron Galenianos, Attila Altiner, Barbara Pytel-Krolczuk, Tiphanie Bouchez, David Darmon, Lilit Ghazaryan, Kristina Gyurjyan, Marilena Anastasaki, and Dragan Soldo for their support in initiating, setting up, and/or supervising the PPAS in their countries.

  • Received November 9, 2021.
  • Accepted December 3, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2022, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Goossens H,
    2. Ferech M,
    3. Vander Stichele R,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a cross-national database study. Lancet 365 (9459):579–587, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17907-0, pmid:15708101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Zanichelli V,
    2. Monnier AA,
    3. Gyssens IC,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Variation in antibiotic use among and within different settings: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 73 (suppl_6):vi17–vi29, doi:10.1093/jac/dky115, pmid:29878219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Butler CC,
    2. Hood K,
    3. Verheij T,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Variation in antibiotic prescribing and its impact on recovery in patients with acute cough in primary care: prospective study in 13 countries. BMJ 338 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2242, pmid:19549995. b2242.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Tonkin-Crine SK,
    2. Tan PS,
    3. van Hecke O,
    4. Wang K,
    5. et al.
    (2017) Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9 (9), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012252.pub2, pmid:28881002. CD012252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Huttner B,
    2. Goossens H,
    3. Verheij T,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Characteristics and outcomes of public campaigns aimed at improving the use of antibiotics in outpatients in high-income countries. Lancet Infect Dis 10 (1):17–31, doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70305-6, pmid:20129146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
    (2020) Antimicrobial consumption in the EU/EEA: annual epidemiological report for 2019. accessed. www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Antimicrobial-consumption-in-the-EU-Annual-Epidemiological-Report-2019.pdf. 16 Mar 2022.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bruyndonckx R,
    2. Adriaenssens N,
    3. Versporten A,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Consumption of antibiotics in the community, European Union/European Economic Area, 1997–2017. J Antimicrob Chemother 76 (12 Suppl 2):ii7–ii13, doi:10.1093/jac/dkab172, pmid:34312654.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Costelloe C,
    2. Metcalfe C,
    3. Lovering A,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340 doi:10.1136/bmj.c2096, pmid:20483949. c2096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Yates TD,
    2. Davis ME,
    3. Taylor YJ,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Not a magic pill: a qualitative exploration of provider perspectives on antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient setting. BMC Fam Pract 19 (1), doi:10.1186/s12875-018-0788-4, pmid:29933762. 96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Llor C,
    2. Bjerrum L
    (2014) Antimicrobial resistance: risk associated with antibiotic overuse and initiatives to reduce the problem. Ther Adv Drug Saf 5 (6):229–241, doi:10.1177/2042098614554919, pmid:25436105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dadgostar P
    (2019) Antimicrobial resistance: implications and costs. Infect Drug Resist 12 3903–3910, doi:10.2147/IDR.S234610, pmid:31908502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Dekker ARJ,
    2. Verheij TJM,
    3. van der Velden AW
    (2015) Inappropriate antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract indications: most prominent in adult patients. Fam Pract 32 (4):401–407, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmv019, pmid:25911505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Pouwels KB,
    2. Dolk FCK,
    3. Smith DRM,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Actual versus 'ideal' antibiotic prescribing for common conditions in English primary care. J Antimicrob Chemother 73 (suppl_2):19–26, doi:10.1093/jac/dkx502, pmid:29490060.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. van der Velden AW,
    2. Pijpers EJ,
    3. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Br J Gen Pract 62 (605):e801–e807, doi:10.3399/bjgp12X659268, pmid:23211259.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. McDonagh MS,
    2. Peterson K,
    3. Winthrop K,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections: summary and update of a systematic review. J Int Med Res 46 (8):3337–3357, doi:10.1177/0300060518782519, pmid:29962311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Machowska A,
    2. Stålsby Lundborg C
    (2018) Drivers of irrational use of antibiotics in Europe. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 (1), doi:10.3390/ijerph16010027, pmid:30583571. 27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    1. King LM,
    2. Fleming-Dutra KE,
    3. Hicks LA
    (2018) Advances in optimizing the prescription of antibiotics in outpatient settings. BMJ 363 k3047, doi:10.1136/bmj.k3047, pmid:30420401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.
    1. McCleary N,
    2. Francis JJ,
    3. Campbell MK,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection: exploring drivers of cognitive effort and factors associated with inappropriate prescribing. Fam Pract 38 (6):740–750, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmab030, pmid:33972999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Petursson P
    (2005) GPs' reasons for "non-pharmacological" prescribing of antibiotics. A phenomenological study. Scand J Prim Health Care 23 (2):120–125, doi:10.1080/02813430510018491, pmid:16036552.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Touboul-Lundgren P,
    2. Jensen S,
    3. Drai J,
    4. Lindbæk M
    (2015) Identification of cultural determinants of antibiotic use cited in primary care in Europe: a mixed research synthesis study of integrated design "Culture is all around us" BMC Public Health 15 doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2254-8, pmid:26381376. 908.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gaygısız Ü,
    2. Lajunen T,
    3. Gaygısız E
    (2017) Socio-economic factors, cultural values, national personality and antibiotics use: a cross-cultural study among european countries. J Infect Public Health 10 (6):755–760, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2016.11.011, pmid:28209467.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Cohen JF,
    2. Pauchard J-Y,
    3. Hjelm N,
    4. Cohen R,
    5. et al.
    (2020) Efficacy and safety of rapid tests to guide antibiotic prescriptions for sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6 (6), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012431.pub2, pmid:32497279. CD012431.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Falk G,
    2. Fahey T
    (2009) C-reactive protein and community-acquired pneumonia in ambulatory care: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. Fam Pract 26 (1):10–21, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn095, pmid:19074757.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Minnaard MC,
    2. de Groot JAH,
    3. Hopstaken RM,
    4. et al.
    (2017) The added value of C-reactive protein measurement in diagnosing pneumonia in primary care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. CMAJ 189 (2):E56–E63, doi:10.1503/cmaj.151163, pmid:27647618.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Aabenhus R,
    2. Jensen J-US,
    3. Jørgensen KJ,
    4. Hróbjartsson A,
    5. et al.
    (2014) Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in patients with acute respiratory infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11 (11), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010130.pub2. CD010130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Verbakel JY,
    2. Lee JJ,
    3. Goyder C,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Impact of point-of-care C reactive protein in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 9 (1), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025036, pmid:30782747. e025036.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. van der Velden AW,
    2. Bax EA,
    3. Bongard E,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries. BMJ Open 11 (7), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049257, pmid:34326052. e049257.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Moberg AB,
    2. Jensen AR,
    3. Paues J,
    4. Magnus F
    (2020) C-reactive protein influences the doctor's degree of suspicion of pneumonia in primary care: a prospective observational study. Eur J Gen Pract 26 (1):210–216, doi:10.1080/13814788.2020.1852547, pmid:33399009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Borg MA,
    2. Camilleri L
    (2019) Broad-spectrum antibiotic use in Europe: more evidence of cultural influences on prescribing behaviour. J Antimicrob Chemother 74 (11):3379–3383, doi:10.1093/jac/dkz312, pmid:31314092.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Blommaert A,
    2. Marais C,
    3. Hens N,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Determinants of between-country differences in ambulatory antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in Europe: a longitudinal observational study. J Antimicrob Chemother 69 (2):535–547, doi:10.1093/jac/dkt377, pmid:24080501.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Haldrup S,
    2. Thomsen RW,
    3. Bro F,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Microbiological point of care testing before antibiotic prescribing in primary care: considerable variations between practices. BMC Fam Pract 18 (1), doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0576-y, pmid:28125965. 9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Martínez-González NA,
    2. Keizer E,
    3. Plate A,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Point-of-care c-reactive protein testing to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Antibiotics 9 (9):610, doi:10.3390/antibiotics9090610, pmid:32948060.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Eley CV,
    2. Sharma A,
    3. Lee H,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Effects of primary care C-reactive protein point-of-care testing on antibiotic prescribing by general practice staff: pragmatic randomised controlled trial, England, 2016 and 2017. Euro Surveill 25 (44):1900408, doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.44.1900408.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Cooke J,
    2. Llor C,
    3. Hopstaken R,
    4. Dryden M,
    5. et al.
    (2020) Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care: narrative review of C reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) and antibacterial use in patients who present with symptoms of RTI. BMJ Open Respir Res 7 (1), doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000624, pmid:32895246. e000624.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 6, Issue 2
June 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries
Alike W van der Velden, Alma C van de Pol, Emily Bongard, Daniela Cianci, Rune Aabenhus, Anca Balan, Femke Böhmer, Valerija Bralić Lang, Pascale Bruno, Slawomir Chlabicz, Samuel Coenen, Annelies Colliers, Ana García-Sangenís, Hrachuhi Ghazaryan, Maciej Godycki-Ćwirko, Siri Jensen, Christos Lionis, Sanne R van der Linde, Lile Malania, Jozsef Pauer, Angela Tomacinschii, Akke Vellinga, Ihor Zastavnyy, Susanne Emmerich, Adam Zerda, Theo J Verheij, Herman Goossens, Christopher C Butler
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (2): BJGPO.2021.0212. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0212

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries
Alike W van der Velden, Alma C van de Pol, Emily Bongard, Daniela Cianci, Rune Aabenhus, Anca Balan, Femke Böhmer, Valerija Bralić Lang, Pascale Bruno, Slawomir Chlabicz, Samuel Coenen, Annelies Colliers, Ana García-Sangenís, Hrachuhi Ghazaryan, Maciej Godycki-Ćwirko, Siri Jensen, Christos Lionis, Sanne R van der Linde, Lile Malania, Jozsef Pauer, Angela Tomacinschii, Akke Vellinga, Ihor Zastavnyy, Susanne Emmerich, Adam Zerda, Theo J Verheij, Herman Goossens, Christopher C Butler
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (2): BJGPO.2021.0212. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0212
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • primary health care
  • anti-bacterial agents
  • respiratory tract infections
  • diagnostics
  • C-reactive protein
  • group A streptococcus
  • GP
  • audit
  • confidence

More in this TOC Section

  • General practitioner roles in emergency medical services: a systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis
  • Parental experiences of eczema advice in online parenting forums: Qualitative interview study
  • Characteristics of asthma patients overprescribed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever inhalers stratified by blood eosinophil count in North East London – a cross-sectional observational study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2023 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795