Jill Rutter, Christopher R Wilcox, Nour Odeh, Ingrid Muller, Tristan W Clark, Paul Little, Firoza Davies, John McGavin, Nick Francis
{"title":"Use of the FebriDx point-of-care test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.","authors":"Jill Rutter, Christopher R Wilcox, Nour Odeh, Ingrid Muller, Tristan W Clark, Paul Little, Firoza Davies, John McGavin, Nick Francis","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>FebriDx is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>As part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in primary care.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Remote semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in South England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In total, 22 individuals (12 patients who underwent FebriDx testing and 10 HCPs from general practices that conducted testing) participated in interviews, which were analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients and HCPs expressed positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results, which impacted on usability, were identified. Some patients' reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FebriDx was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction, and successful adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523514/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: FebriDx is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample.
Aim: As part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in primary care.
Design & setting: Remote semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in South England.
Method: In total, 22 individuals (12 patients who underwent FebriDx testing and 10 HCPs from general practices that conducted testing) participated in interviews, which were analysed thematically.
Results: Patients and HCPs expressed positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results, which impacted on usability, were identified. Some patients' reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test.
Conclusion: FebriDx was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction, and successful adoption.