SHOULD WE USE THE POINT-OF-CARE FOR TESTING C-REACTIVE PROTEIN IN ORDER TO DIAGNOSE THE RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE?

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
E A Andreeva
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Rani Sauriasari ◽  
Yusna Fadliyyah Apriyanti ◽  
Dito Pramono

Objective: The Ministry of Health (MoH) Regulation No. 30, 2014, about Health Service Standards defines the need for routine monitoring ofprescribing indicators for several diseases, including non-pneumonia acute respiratory tract infection (ARI).Methods: This study compares the results of percentage analysis of the antibiotic usage in patients with non-pneumonia ARI with two methods.Medical record data from April 2016 were collected from Primary Health Care (Puskesmas) Palmerah, West Jakarta.Results: Convenience sampling indicated that 14.28% of patients with non-pneumonia ARIs used antibiotics. Simple random sampling indicatedthat 25% of patients with non-pneumonia ARIs used antibiotics. Differences in sample selection methods affected the final outcome (percentage ofpatients who used antibiotics). The tolerance limit for antibiotic use in non-pneumonia ARIs established by MoH was 20%.Conclusion: These results indicate a need for MoH guidance to pay attention to the sampling techniques used in monitoring the treatment of nonpneumoniaARIs in Primary Health Care.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e024558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Johnson ◽  
Liz Cross ◽  
Nick Sandison ◽  
Jamie Stevenson ◽  
Thomas Monks ◽  
...  

ObjectivesUtilisation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection has been limited in UK primary care, with costs and funding suggested as important barriers. We aimed to use existing National Health Service funding and policy mechanisms to alleviate these barriers and engage with clinicians and healthcare commissioners to encourage implementation.DesignA mixed-methods study design was adopted, including a qualitative survey to identify clinicians’ and commissioners’ perceived benefits, barriers and enablers post-implementation, and quantitative analysis of results from a real-world implementation study.InterventionsWe developed a funding specification to underpin local reimbursement of general practices for test delivery based on an item of service payment. We also created training and administrative materials to facilitate implementation by reducing organisational burden. The implementation study provided intervention sites with a testing device and supplies, training and practical assistance.ResultsDespite engagement with several groups, implementation and uptake of our funding specification were limited. Survey respondents confirmed costs and funding as important barriers in addition to physical and operational constraints and cited training and the value of a local champion as enablers.ConclusionsAlthough survey respondents highlighted the clinical benefits, funding remains a barrier to implementation in UK primary care and appears not to be alleviated by the existing financial incentives available to commissioners. The potential to meet incentive targets using lower cost methods, a lack of policy consistency or competing financial pressures and commissioning programmes may be important determinants of local priorities. An implementation champion could help to catalyse support and overcome operational barriers at the local level, but widespread implementation is likely to require national policy change. Successful implementation may reproduce antibiotic prescribing reductions observed in research studies.


1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Hjortdahl ◽  
Sverre Landaas ◽  
Petter Urdal ◽  
Martin Steinbakk ◽  
Per Fuglerud ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document