Are insect bites responsible for the rise in summer flucloxacillin prescribing in United Kingdom general practices?

BACKGROUND: Insect bite inflammation may mimic cellulitis and promote unnecessary antibiotic usage, contributing to antimicrobial resistance in primary care. We wondered how general practice clinicians assess and manage insect bites, diagnose cellulitis, and prescribe antibiotics. METHOD: This is a Quality Improvement study in which 10 general practices in England and Wales investigated patients attending for the first time with insect bites between April and September 2021 to their practices. Mode of consultation, presentation, management plan, and reattendance or referral were noted. Total practice flucloxacillin prescribing was compared to that for insect bites. RESULTS: A combined list size of 161,346 yielded 355 insect bite consultations. Nearly two-thirds were female, ages 3-89 years old, with July as the peak month and a mean weekly incidence of 8 per 100,000. GPs still undertook most consultations; most were phone consultations, with photo support for over half. Over 40% presented between days 1 and 3 and common symptoms were redness, itchness, pain, and heat. Vital sign recording was not common, and only 22% of patients were already taking an antihistamine despite 45% complaining of itch. Antibiotics were prescribed to nearly three-quarters of the patients, mainly orally and mostly as flucloxacillin. Reattendance occurred for 12% and referral to hospital for 2%. Flucloxacillin for insect bites contributed a mean of 5.1% of total practice flucloxacillin prescriptions, with a peak of 10.7% in July. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics are likely to be overused in our insect bite practice and patients could make more use of antihistamines for itch before consulting.

It can be difficult to know if redness, heat, swelling, and pain from insect bites are due to inflammation or infection. Prescribing unnecessary antibiotics may result in germs becoming resistant to antibiotics when needed. Ten general practices in England and Wales investigated their management of insect bites in the 6 months of April to September 2021 inclusive. There were 355 bites; women presented more often than men, and ages were from 3 to 89 years old, half of them were 30­69 years old. People mainly consulted their GP by phone with photos of their bites. Key symptoms were redness, itchness, heat, and pain. More people had itch than were taking antihistamines or using steroid cream. Most people (nearly 7 out of 10) were prescribed an oral antibiotic, usually flucloxacillin, which accounted for about 5% of total flucloxacillin prescribed in the practices. Only 2 in 100 people needed further hospital care. It is likely that general practice clinicians are over-using antibiotics for insect bites and that home management before seeking medical help with painkillers, antihistamines, and steroid creams could be used more. Now that we have baseline data, there is a need to set up studies to prove that these reduce antibiotic usage.

Variation in laboratory testing for patients with long-term conditions: a longitudinal cohort study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Use of laboratory testing has increased in the UK over the past few decades, with considerable geographical variation. AIM: To evaluate what laboratory tests are used to monitor people with hypertension, type 2 (T2) diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) and assess variation in test use in UK primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Longitudinal cohort study of people registered with UK general practices between June 2013 and May 2018 and previously diagnosed with hypertension, T2 diabetes, or CKD. METHOD: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to ethnic group and deprivation was used to examine testing rates over time, by GP practice, age, sex, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation, with age-sex standardisation. RESULTS: Nearly 1 million patients were included, and more than 27 million tests. The most ordered tests were for renal function (1463 per 1000 person-years), liver function (1063 per 1000 person-years), and full blood count (FBC; 996 per 1000 person-years). There was evidence of undertesting (compared with current guidelines) for HbA1c and albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) or microalbumin, and potential overtesting of lipids, FBC, liver function, and thyroid function. Some GP practices had up to 27 times higher testing rates than others (HbA1c testing among patients with CKD). CONCLUSION: Testing rates are no longer increasing, but they are not always within the guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions (LTCs). There was considerable variation by GP practice, indicating uncertainty over the most appropriate testing frequencies for different conditions. Standardising the monitoring of LTCs based on the latest evidence would provide greater consistency of access to monitoring tests.

GP's perspectives on laboratory test use for monitoring long-term conditions: an audit of current testing practice.

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously that current recommendations in UK guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions are largely based on expert opinion. Due to a lack of robust evidence on optimal monitoring strategies and testing intervals, the guidelines are unclear and incomplete. This uncertainty may underly variation in testing that has been observed across the UK between GP practices and regions. METHODS: Our objective was to audit current testing practices of GPs in the UK; in particular, perspectives on laboratory tests for monitoring long-term conditions, the workload, and how confident GPs are in ordering and interpreting these tests. We designed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions that was promoted on social media and in newsletters targeting GPs practicing in UK. The survey was live between October-November 2019. The results were analysed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 550 GPs, of whom 69% had more than 10 years of experience. The majority spent more than 30 min per day on testing (78%), but only half of the respondents felt confident in dealing with abnormal results (53%). There was a high level of disagreement for whether liver function tests and full blood counts should be done 'routinely', 'sometimes', or 'never' in patients with a certain long-term condition. The free text comments revealed three common themes: (1) pressures that promote over-testing, i.e. guidelines or protocols, workload from secondary care, fear of missing something, patient expectations; (2) negative consequences of over-testing, i.e. increased workload and patient harm; and (3) uncertainties due to lack of evidence and unclear guidelines. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the variation that has been observed in test ordering data. The results also show that most GPs spent a significant part of their day ordering and interpreting monitoring tests. The lack of confidence in knowing how to act on abnormal test results underlines the urgent need for robust evidence on optimal testing and the development of clear and unambiguous testing recommendations. Uncertainties surrounding optimal testing has resulted in an over-use of tests, which leads to a waste of resources, increased GP workload and potential patient harm.

What methods are being used to create an evidence base on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown unwarranted variation in test ordering among GP practices and regions, which may lead to patient harm and increased health care costs. There is currently no robust evidence base to inform guidelines on monitoring long-term conditions. OBJECTIVES: To map the extent and nature of research that provides evidence on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care, and to identify gaps in existing research. METHODS: We performed a scoping review-a relatively new approach for mapping research evidence across broad topics-using data abstraction forms and charting data according to a scoping framework. We searched CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE to April 2019. We included studies that aimed to optimize the use of laboratory tests and determine costs, patient harm or variation related to testing in a primary care population with long-term conditions. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies were included. Forty percent aimed to describe variation in test ordering and 36% to investigate test performance. Renal function tests (35%), HbA1c (23%) and lipids (17%) were the most studied laboratory tests. Most studies applied a cohort design using routinely collected health care data (49%). We found gaps in research on strategies to optimize test use to improve patient outcomes, optimal testing intervals and patient harms caused by over-testing. CONCLUSIONS: Future research needs to address these gaps in evidence. High-level evidence is missing, i.e. randomized controlled trials comparing one monitoring strategy to another or quasi-experimental designs such as interrupted time series analysis if trials are not feasible.