PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study:In vitro study, diagnostic cohorts and a pragmatic adaptive randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative study and cost-effectiveness study

Background: Antibiotics are still prescribed to most patients attending primary care with acute sore throat, despite evidence that there is modest benefit overall from antibiotics. Targeting antibiotics using either clinical scoring methods or rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) could help. However, there is debate about which groups of streptococci are important (particularly Lancefield groups C and G), and uncertainty about the variables that most clearly predict the presence of streptococci. Objective: This study aimed to compare clinical scores or RADTs with delayed antibiotic prescribing. Design: The study comprised a RADT in vitro study; two diagnostic cohorts to develop streptococcal scores (score 1; score 2); and, finally, an open pragmatic randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: The setting was UK primary care general practices. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 3 years with acute sore throat. Interventions: An internet program randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to (1) delayed antibiotics (control group), (2) clinical score or (3) RADT used according to clinical score. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were self-reported antibiotic use and symptom duration and severity on seven-point Likert scales (primary outcome: mean sore throat/difficulty swallowing score in the first 2-4 days). Results: The IMI TestPack Plus Strep A (Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) was sensitive, specific and easy to use. Lancefield group A/C/G streptococci were found in 40% of cohort 2 and 34% of cohort 1. A five-point score predicting the presence of A/C/G streptococci [FeverPAIN: Fever; Purulence; Attend rapidly (≤ 3 days); severe Inflammation; and No cough or coryza] had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped estimates of area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection. In total, 38% of cohort 1 and 36% of cohort 2 scored ≤ 1 for FeverPAIN, associated with streptococcal percentages of 13% and 18%, respectively. In an adaptive trial design, the preliminary score (score 1; n = 1129) was replaced by FeverPAIN (n = 631). For score 1, there were no significant differences between groups. For FeverPAIN, symptom severity was documented in 80% of patients, and was lower in the clinical score group than in the delayed prescribing group (-0.33; 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; p = 0.039; equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight rather than moderately bad problem), and a similar reduction was observed for the RADT group (-0.30; -0.61 to 0.00; p = 0.053). Moderately bad or worse symptoms resolved significantly faster (30%) in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30; 1.03 to 1.63) but not the RADT group (1.11; 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics, and 29% fewer used antibiotics in the clinical score group (risk ratio 0.71; 0.50 to 0.95; p = 0.018) and 27% fewer in the RADT group (0.73; 0.52 to 0.98; p = 0.033). No significant differences in complications or reconsultations were found. The clinical score group dominated both other groups for both the cost/quality-adjusted life-years and cost/change in symptom severity analyses, being both less costly and more effective, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated the clinical score to be the most likely to be cost-effective from an NHS perspective. Patients were positive about RADTs. Health professionals' concerns about test validity, the time the test took and medicalising self-limiting illness lessened after using the tests. For both RADTs and clinical scores, there were tensions with established clinical experience. Conclusions: Targeting antibiotics using a clinical score (FeverPAIN) efficiently improves symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. RADTs used in combination with FeverPAIN provide no clear advantages over FeverPAIN alone, and RADTs are unlikely to be incorporated into practice until health professionals' concerns are met and they have experience of using them. Clinical scores also face barriers related to clinicians' perceptions of their utility in the face of experience. This study has demonstrated the limitation of using one data set to develop a clinical score. FeverPAIN, derived from two data sets, appears to be valid and its use improves outcomes, but diagnostic studies to confirm the validity of FeverPAIN in other data sets and settings are needed. Experienced clinicians need to identify barriers to the use of clinical scoring methods. Implementation studies that address perceived barriers in the use of FeverPAIN are needed

How communication affects prescription decisions in consultations for acute illness in children:a systematic review and meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND: Communication within primary care consultations for children with acute illness can be problematic for parents and clinicians, with potential misunderstandings contributing to over–prescription of antibiotics. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence in relation to communication and decision making in consultations for children with common acute illness. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SSCI, SIGLE, Dissertation Express and NHS economic evaluation databases was conducted. Studies of primary care settings in high income countries which made direct observations of consultations and reported qualitative data were included. Included studies were appraised using the process recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative Methods Group. Credibility was assessed as high for most studies but transferability was usually assessed low or unclear. Data were synthesised using a meta–ethnographic approach. RESULTS: Thirty–five papers and 2 theses reporting on 13 studies were included, 7 of these focussed on children with respiratory tract infections (RTI) and the remaining 6 included children with any presenting illness. Parent communication focussed on their concerns and information needs, whereas clinician communication focussed on diagnosis and treatment decisions. During information exchanges, parents often sought to justify the need for the consultation, while clinicians frequently used problem minimising language, resulting in parents and clinicians sometimes talking at cross–purposes. In the context of RTIs, a range of parent communication behaviours were interpreted by clinicians as indicating an expectation for antibiotics; however, most were ambiguous and could also be interpreted as raising concerns or requests for further information. The perceived expectation for antibiotics often changed clinician decision making into clinician–parent negotiation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstandings occurred due to parents and clinicians talking at cross purposes about the ‘seriousness’ of the illness and because parents’ expressions of concern or requests for additional information were sometimes perceived as a challenge to the clinicians’ diagnosis or treatment decision. This modifiable problem may be an important contribution to the unnecessary and unwanted prescribing of antibiotics. Primary care clinicians should be offered training to understand parent communication primarily as expressions of concern or attempts at understanding and always to check rather than infer parental expectations

The zeitgeist of resistance

The accumulation of bacterial antibiotic resistance is a dramatic demonstration of Darwin's dictum of the survival of the fittest, with serious practical consequences for the treatment of infection. Patterns and mechanisms of resistance undergo continuous evolution and, while the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus has stabilized in the UK, other resistances are proliferating rapidly, notably those to cephalosporins and quinolones among Gram-negative bacteria; carbapenem resistance is growing too, notably in Acinetobacter spp. In contrast, several much-feared resistances, for example to vancomycin in staphylococci, have failed to accumulate significantly, despite repeated emergence. For a resistance to 'succeed', it needs to have a mechanism that imposes little fitness burden, along with a biologically 'fit' host strain or strains. Once this combination arises, control is extremely difficult

Palliative care and policy in England: a review of health improvement plans for 1999–2003

Since 1987 health authorities in England have been required to make plans for palliative care provision, but their record in doing so has been patchy. The production of health improvement plans (HImPs), in which each health authority must set out its priorities and actions designed to improve the health and well-being of its local population, provides an opportunity to examine the extent to which palliative care provision in the NHS is regarded as a priority by policy makers in England. This paper reports on a structured documentary review of the HImPs published by the 99 health authorities in England. The review indicates that at the moment, in spite of the longstanding duty placed on health authorities to develop strategic plans for palliative care and to assess the level of local palliative care needs, not all have made significant progress in this direction. Among those that do have plans for palliative care, the vast majority of these plans are for people with cancer. What emerges most clearly is a sense in which specialist palliative care, especially for non-cancer patients, is perceived as an ‘optional extra’ by many health authorities rather than an integral and essential part of the overall supportive care strategy which they clearly are at pains to develop

Clinical nurse specialists in palliative care. Part 3. Issues for the Macmillan Nurse role

The remit and boundaries of the Macmillan Nursing role in the UK have been called into question recently by a number of policy-driven changes. The rapid appointment of tumour sitespecific nurses and the development of posts for palliative medicine, stemming originally from the Calman-Hine recommendations for reorganizing cancer services, have created unparalleled challenges of adaptation to new working practices and procedures. The extent to which Macmillan Nurses are adapting to these new demands was addressed as part of a major evaluation study of UK Macmillan Nursing in 12 sites commissioned by the UK charity Macmillan Cancer Relief. This paper draws upon semi-structured interviews with Macmillan Nurses (n = 44) and their key colleagues (n = 47). We found that differences of expectation between Macmillan Nurses and their managers about the appropriate focus of their work lead to problems of role ambiguity and role conflict; that Macmillan Nurses lack resources with which to develop an educative and consultative role and yet substitute for inadequacies in skills and knowledge of other health care staff; and that problems are associated in co-working with newly appointed cancer site-specific nurses and palliative medicine colleagues. Macmillan Nursing has a crucial role to play in meeting the objectives in the NHS Cancer Plan. However, in order to ensure that their expertise is used efficiently and effectively, there is an urgent need to clarify the nature and scope of the Macmillan Nurse role, to attend to issues of team working and to improve the skills of nonspecialist staff in palliative care