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.

Diagnosis Family medicine Infectious illness

Journal

BJGP open
ISSN: 2398-3795
Titre abrégé: BJGP Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101713531

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 21 05 2024
accepted: 27 06 2024
medline: 20 8 2024
pubmed: 20 8 2024
entrez: 19 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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. To investigate the utilization of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs in routine primary care. Prospective observational study in 49 general practices in Germany (Nov/2022 to Apr/2023). GPs were provided with CRP-POCTs and collected data for each CRP-POCT use using standardized data collection sheets. 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 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 OBJECTIVE
To investigate the utilization of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs in routine primary care.
DESIGN & SETTING METHODS
Prospective observational study in 49 general practices in Germany (Nov/2022 to Apr/2023).
METHOD METHODS
GPs were provided with CRP-POCTs and collected data for each CRP-POCT use using standardized data collection sheets.
RESULTS 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
CONCLUSIONS 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39159989
pii: BJGPO.2024.0120
doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0120
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024, The Authors.

Auteurs

Robby Markwart (R)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
InfectoGnostics Research Campus Jena, Jena, Germany.

Lena-Sophie Lehmann (LS)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Markus Krause (M)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Paul Jung (P)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Liliana Rost (L)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Susanne Doepfmer (S)

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice, Berlin, Germany.

Lisa Kuempel (L)

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice, Berlin, Germany.

Doreen Kuschick (D)

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice, Berlin, Germany.

Kahina J Toutaoui (KJ)

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice, Berlin, Germany.

Christoph Heintze (C)

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice, Berlin, Germany.

Jutta Bleidorn (J)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Florian Wolf (F)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany Florian.wolf@med.uni-jena.de.

Classifications MeSH