Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care-testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Rebecca Clarke, Emily Brown, Alastair D Hay, Paul Mark Mitchell, Matthew J Ridd, Liang Zhu, Lucy Yardley
{"title":"Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care-testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.","authors":"Rebecca Clarke, Emily Brown, Alastair D Hay, Paul Mark Mitchell, Matthew J Ridd, Liang Zhu, Lucy Yardley","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid microbiological point-of-care tests (POCTRM) present an opportunity to reduce antibiotic exposure and antimicrobial resistance. So far, there is limited understanding of how POCTRM may support clinicians in primary care in the UK and how POCTs might be integrated into practice.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate clinicians' views on how POCTRM could influence clinical decisions and routine practice, and perspectives on how POCTRM may impact the clinician-patient relationship.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Qualitative study embedded in a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled efficacy trial evaluating the use of a multiplex POCTRM for suspected respiratory tract infections in primary care.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Individual interviews were conducted with 18 clinicians (n= 9 General Practitioners, 4 Advanced Nurse Practitioners, 1 trainee Advanced Nurse Practitioner, 1 Clinical Pharmacist, 2 Paramedics, 1 Emergency Care Practitioner). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically informed a realist approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>POCTRM can guide prescribing decisions when clinicians experience diagnostic uncertainty and support communication with patients to reinforce prescribing decisions. Consequently, the perceived value, and use of, POCTRM varied according to clinicians' confidence in making prescribing decisions and managing patient expectations and their clinical roles. The costly and time-consuming nature of POCTRM meant that integration of POCTRM into routine practice was considered unlikely at present.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians in this study had generally favourable views towards POCTRM, but further POCTRM training, complementary strategies such as communication skills training and patient education, and clear guidance on implementation should be explored to optimise POCTRM feasibility and outcomes across different primary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0413","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid microbiological point-of-care tests (POCTRM) present an opportunity to reduce antibiotic exposure and antimicrobial resistance. So far, there is limited understanding of how POCTRM may support clinicians in primary care in the UK and how POCTs might be integrated into practice.

Aim: To investigate clinicians' views on how POCTRM could influence clinical decisions and routine practice, and perspectives on how POCTRM may impact the clinician-patient relationship.

Design and setting: Qualitative study embedded in a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled efficacy trial evaluating the use of a multiplex POCTRM for suspected respiratory tract infections in primary care.

Method: Individual interviews were conducted with 18 clinicians (n= 9 General Practitioners, 4 Advanced Nurse Practitioners, 1 trainee Advanced Nurse Practitioner, 1 Clinical Pharmacist, 2 Paramedics, 1 Emergency Care Practitioner). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically informed a realist approach.

Results: POCTRM can guide prescribing decisions when clinicians experience diagnostic uncertainty and support communication with patients to reinforce prescribing decisions. Consequently, the perceived value, and use of, POCTRM varied according to clinicians' confidence in making prescribing decisions and managing patient expectations and their clinical roles. The costly and time-consuming nature of POCTRM meant that integration of POCTRM into routine practice was considered unlikely at present.

Conclusion: Clinicians in this study had generally favourable views towards POCTRM, but further POCTRM training, complementary strategies such as communication skills training and patient education, and clear guidance on implementation should be explored to optimise POCTRM feasibility and outcomes across different primary care settings.

快速微生物呼吸点护理测试:与初级保健临床医生的定性研究。
背景:快速微生物点护理试验(POCTRM)提供了减少抗生素暴露和抗菌素耐药性的机会。到目前为止,对于POCTRM如何支持英国初级保健的临床医生以及poct如何整合到实践中,人们的理解有限。目的:探讨临床医生对POCTRM如何影响临床决策和日常实践的看法,以及POCTRM如何影响医患关系的观点。设计和背景:定性研究嵌入多中心,单独随机对照疗效试验,评估在初级保健中使用多重POCTRM治疗疑似呼吸道感染。方法:对18名临床医生(9名全科医生、4名高级执业护士、1名实习高级执业护士、1名临床药师、2名护理人员、1名急诊执业医生)进行个别访谈。采访录音,逐字抄录,并按主题进行分析,采用现实主义方法。结果:POCTRM可以指导临床医生在诊断不确定时的处方决策,并支持与患者的沟通以加强处方决策。因此,POCTRM的感知价值和使用根据临床医生对处方决策和管理患者期望的信心以及他们的临床角色而变化。POCTRM的昂贵和耗时的性质意味着目前不太可能将POCTRM纳入常规实践。结论:本研究的临床医生对POCTRM普遍持赞成态度,但应进一步探讨POCTRM培训、沟通技巧培训和患者教育等补充策略以及明确的实施指导,以优化POCTRM在不同基层医疗机构的可行性和效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信