Qualitative study on shared decision making in cystitis management in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Cystitis are commonly treated with antibiotics, although non-antibiotic options could be considered for healthy non-pregnant women. Shared decision making (SDM) can be used in cystitis management to discuss the various treatment options but is not frequently applied in general practice. AIM: Identifying barriers and facilitators for applying SDM in cystitis management in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative explorative research in general practice with healthcare professionals (HCPs; general practitioners (GPs) and GP assistants) and healthy non-pregnant women with a recent history of cystitis (patients). METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and October 2022. We applied a combination of thematic and framework analysis. RESULTS: Ten GPs, seven GP assistants, and fifteen patients were interviewed. We identified three main barriers and one key facilitator: 1) applying SDM is deemed inefficient; 2) HCPs presume that patients expect antibiotic treatment and some HCPs consider non-antibiotic treatment inferior; 3) Patients are largely unaware of the various non-antibiotic treatment options for cystitis; 4) HCPs recognise some benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management, including reduced antibiotic use and improved patient empowerment, and patients appreciate involvement in treatment decisions, but preferences for SDM vary. CONCLUSION: SDM is infrequently applied in cystitis treatment in general practice due to the current efficient cystitis management, HCPs' perceptions, and patient unawareness. Nevertheless, both HCPs and patients recognise the long-term benefits of applying SDM in cystitis management. Our findings facilitate the development of tailored interventions to increase the application of SDM which should be co-created with HCPs and patients and fit into the current efficient cystitis management.

Shared decision making for women with uncomplicated Cystitis in Primary Care in the Netherlands: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common, especially among women. Antibiotics are commonly used to treat UTIs, but might not always be necessary, for example in the case of uncomplicated UTIs such as cystitis. Shared decision making (SDM) could reduce the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated cystitis. We investigated the current management and the use of SDM for uncomplicated cystitis in primary care. METHODS: We performed a qualitative semi-structured interview study among 23 women with a history of cystitis, 12 general practitioner (GP) assistants, and 12 GPs in the Netherlands from July to October 2020. All interviews were individually performed by telephone. The data were analyzed through the use of using open and axial coding. RESULTS: The GP assistants managed the initial diagnostics and treatment of uncomplicated cystitis in all general practices. Usually, antibiotics were considered the standard treatment of cystitis. In most general practices, SDM was not used in the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis, mainly because of a lack of time. Women reported that they valued being involved in the treatment decision-making process, but they were not always involved. Further, both GP assistants and GPs indicated that SDM would improve the care pathway of uncomplicated UTIs. CONCLUSION: In our study, SDM was infrequently used to help women with uncomplicated cystitis. To reduce the use of antibiotics for uncomplicated UTIs, a tailored intervention is needed to implement SDM for the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis in primary care.

Why Are We Frequently Ordering Urinalyses in Patients without Symptoms of Urinary Tract Infections in the Emergency Department?

(1) Background: In the emergency department (ED), ordering urine tests in patients without symptoms of a urinary tract infection can lead to inappropriate antimicrobial treatment. We aimed to identify factors contributing to the unnecessary ordering of urinalyses in the ED. (2) Methods: An online survey study among nurses and physicians working in the EDs of five hospitals in the Netherlands was conducted. (3) Results: The overall response rate was 26% (221/850; 85 nurses and 136 physicians). The vast majority of the respondents reported knowing when to order urine tests (197/221; 90%). Almost two-thirds of the respondents (145/221; 66%) agreed that they ordered urinalyses because it is rapid and non-invasive to patients. Most nurses (66/86; 78%) said they informed the doctor if they thought the urine test would not contribute to the patient's diagnosis, but only one-third of the physicians agreed with this statement (44/136; 32%). Most respondents (160/221; 72%) thought guidelines or protocols about urinalyses in the ED would be functional. (4) Conclusions: These results suggest urinalyses were frequently ordered in the ED to achieve a fast work process. Nurses and physicians could improve their communication about the indications for urine tests. Developing diagnostic guidelines for urine testing may be convenient.

Registration of catheter-related complications in adverse events reporting systems: a major underestimation of the real complication practice.

Reporting and learning from preventable adverse events is crucial to improve patient safety. Although physicians should file and analyse adverse events by law in The Netherlands, it is unknown if these reporting systems are sufficiently used in clinical practice. This study is a substudy of the multicenter RICAT trial, a successful quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters in medical wards in seven hospitals, in which we screened 5696 patients and documented 803 catheter-related complications. We also checked the adverse events reporting systems of these patients and found that only 13 (1.6%) of 803 catheter-related complications were registered. Of the infectious complications only five (10.9%) of 46 catheter-associated bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections were registered. We conclude that the reported complications were a major underestimation of the real complication practice in medical wards in The Netherlands. The RICAT trial is registered at Netherlands Trial Register, trial NL5438.

Guideline Adherence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria Could Be Improved among General Practitioners in The Netherlands: A Survey Study.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is a common finding in certain populations. This study assessed general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge about ASB and their current clinical practice regarding urine testing. METHODS: An online survey was used for GPs in the Netherlands from October to December 2020. RESULTS: In total, 99 surveys were included in the analyses. All GPs strongly agreed with the statements about their knowledge and self-confidence regarding urine diagnostics and treatment of ASB. The median knowledge score was 4 out of 6 (IQR 2 to 6). Most GPs (64 of 92; 70%) followed the guideline for the choice of urine diagnostics and reported appropriate indications for urine testing. However, 71/94 (75.5%) GPs would treat patients for ASB if they have diabetes mellitus. Further, 34 (37%) of 92 participants would inappropriately repeat a urine test after a patient was treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI). One-third of the GPs responded that ASB was insufficiently addressed within the guidelines for UTI. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that knowledge about ASB could be improved in primary care in the Netherlands, mainly in diabetic patients that have ASB, as well as for follow-up tests after treatment for UTI.

Patient education materials to implement choosing wisely recommendations for internal medicine at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely aims to reduce low-value care to improve quality and lower costs. In the Netherlands, this campaign offers three recommendations for internal medicine applicable in emergency departments (EDs): (1) do not place an indwelling urinary catheter in non-critically ill patients who can void; (2) do not order plain abdominal radiographs in patients with acute abdominal pain; and (3) discuss whether treatment limitations are needed. This quality improvement project aims to increase the implementation of the recommendations by patient information leaflets. METHODS: In a prospective before-after study, we collected data every other week during baseline and intervention periods (both 7 months) in two university medical centres. The primary outcomes were the adherence rates to the recommendations. RESULTS: 805 patients visited the EDs for internal medicine, of whom 391 (48.6%) were hospitalised. Only 153 (19%) patients received the information leaflet. We found no change in implementation rates of the recommendations after the introduction of the patient information leaflet. In the baseline period, 28 patients received a urinary catheter, of whom 5 (17.9%) had no appropriate indication, compared with 4 (25.0%) of 16 patients in the intervention period (p=0.572). Unnecessary abdominal X-ray occurred once in the baseline period and not in the intervention period. Treatment limitations were not reported in 13 (6.5%) of 200 hospitalised patients in the baseline period, and in 17 (8.9%) of 191 patients in the intervention period (p=0.373). CONCLUSIONS: Patient information leaflets did not increase the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations, which can be due to a high baseline rate and a poor dissemination of leaflets. Our ED seems not to be a practicable setting for dissemination of leaflets, since staff engagement was not possible due to high workload and shortage of qualified nursing staff in the Netherlands.

Deimplementation strategy to reduce overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria: a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is one of the most common unnecessary uses of antimicrobials. Earlier studies have shown that the prevalence of this inappropriate treatment ranges from 45% to 83%. Multifaceted interventions based on international guidelines and antimicrobial stewardship can decrease overtreatment of ASB. We have designed a study protocol with the main objective of reducing overtreatment of ASB by 50% through use of a deimplementation strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of our intervention in the emergency department (ED) of five hospitals (clusters) in the Netherlands. All patients (≥18 years old) who have a urine test performed in the ED will be screened for eligibility. The deimplementation strategy consists of a combination of interventions, including education, audit and feedback. The primary endpoint is overtreatment of ASB in patients without risk factors (eg, pregnancy, planned invasive urological procedures and neutropenia). Secondary endpoints are the duration of antimicrobial treatment for ASB, the number of urine cultures and urinalysis per 1000 patients, and overtreatment of positive urinalysis in asymptomatic patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the medical ethics research committee of the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) with a waiver for informed consent. Local feasibility was obtained by the local institutional review boards of all participating hospitals. Our study aims to reduce inappropriate screening and treatment of ASB in EDs, improve healthcare quality, lower the increase in antimicrobial resistance and save costs. If proven (cost)-effective, this study provides a well-suited strategy for a nationwide approach to reduce overtreatment of ASB. Relevant results of our study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant (scientific) conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8242; Pre-results.

How many urinalysis and urine cultures are necessary?

BACKGROUND: Urinalysis and urine culture are two of the most commonly ordered tests. A positive urine test in asymptomatic patients often leads to overtreatment. Antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria is one of the most common unnecessary treatments. We aimed to explore the current ordering patterns of urinalysis and cultures. METHODS: This is a substudy of the multicentre RICAT-trial, a successful quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients with a (central or peripheral) venous or urinary catheter admitted to internal medicine and non-surgical subspecialty wards were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected every other week during baseline (seven months) and intervention periods (seven months). The primary outcome was the proportion of urine cultures performed following a negative urinalysis, i.e. dipstick and/or microscopic analysis, within 24 h. RESULTS: Between September 2016 and April 2018, we included 3748 patients, of which 3111 (83%) were admitted from the emergency department. Urinalysis and/or urine cultures were obtained in 2610 (70%) of 3748 patients. 626 (23.7%) of 2636 urine cultures and 1351 (55.8%) of 2419 microscopic analysis were unnecessary performed after a negative urinalysis. Cancelling urine testing orders after a negative dipstick would have saved almost € 19.500 during the study period in these seven hospitals. CONCLUSION: Unnecessary urine testing is frequent in non-surgical patients in the Netherlands. We need to take action to reduce unnecessary urinalysis and cultures, and thereby probably reduce overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria.

De-implementation strategy to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters (RICAT): a multicentre, prospective, interrupted time-series and before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections are frequently encountered health care-associated infections. We aimed to reduce inappropriate use of catheters to reduce health care-associated infections. METHODS: In this multicentre, interrupted time-series and before and after study, we introduced a de-implementation strategy with multifaceted interventions in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients admitted to internal medicine, gastroenterology, geriatic, oncology, or pulmonology wards, and non-surgical acute admission units, and who had a (central or peripheral) venous or urinary catheter were eligible for inclusion. One of the interventions was that nurses in the participating wards attended educational meetings on appropriate catheter use. Data on catheter use were collected every 2 weeks by the primary research physician during the baseline period (7 months) and intervention period (7 months), which were separated by a 5 month transition period. The primary outcomes were percentages of short peripheral intravenous catheters and urinary catheters used inappropriately on the days of data collection. Indications for catheter use were based on international guidelines. This study is registered with Netherlands Trial Register, NL5438. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2016, and April 1, 2018, we screened 6157 patients for inclusion, of whom 5696 were enrolled: 2650 patients in the baseline group, and 3046 in the intervention group. Inappropriate use of peripheral intravenous catheters occurred in 366 (22·0%, 95% CI 20·0 to 24·0) of 1665 patients in the baseline group and in 275 (14·4%, 12·8 to 16·0) of 1912 patients in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·77, p<0·0001). Time-series analyses showed an absolute reduction in inappropriate use of peripheral intravenous catheters from baseline to intervention periods of 6·65% (95% CI 2·47 to 10·82, p=0·011). Inappropriate use of urinary catheters occurred in 105 (32·4%, 95% CI 27·3 to 37·8) of 324 patients in the baseline group compared with 96 (24·1%, 20·0 to 28·6) of 398 patients in the intervention group (IRR 0·74, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·98, p=0·013). Time-series analyses showed an absolute reduction in inappropriate use of urinary catheters of 6·34% (95% CI -12·46 to 25·13, p=0·524). INTERPRETATION: Our de-implementation strategy reduced inappropriate use of short peripheral intravenous catheters in patients who were not in the intensive care unit. The reduction of inappropriate use of urinary catheters was substantial, yet not statistically significant in time-series analysis due to a small sample size. The strategy appears well suited for broad-scale implementation to reduce health care-associated infections. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Patients knowledge and experience with urinary and peripheral intravenous catheters.

PURPOSE: Inappropriate use of urinary and intravenous catheters is still frequent. The use of catheters is associated with some serious complications, such as health care associated infections (HAIs). An efficient way to reduce HAIs is to avoid inappropriate use of catheters, but the role for patients in quality improvement initiatives is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate patients knowledge and experience with catheters, to design patient interventions to reduce inappropriate catheter use. METHODS: We assessed patient's knowledge and experience with catheters using a self report questionnaire, and included patients with a urinary and/or peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) during the baseline measurements of a quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate catheters use. RESULTS: A total number of 82 patients completed the questionnaire, of which 49 had a urinary catheter and 72 a PIVC. Patients were unaware about the indication for their urinary catheter in 20.9% and PIVC in 19.5%. Nevertheless, 65.3% reported symptoms due to urinary catheters and 37.5% for PIVCs. Interestingly, only 25.5% and 22.4% reported that they would ask their doctor if the catheter could be removed. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of knowledge about the indication for having a urinary and peripheral intravenous catheter in a substantial part of patients. Although catheters cause symptoms, patients in general do not ask if the catheter could be removed. Doctors should give more information and ask more questions about catheters to their patients. Quality improvement initiatives stimulating patients to actively participate in their treatment are needed.

De-implementation strategy to Reduce the Inappropriate use of urinary and intravenous CATheters: study protocol for the RICAT-study.

BACKGROUND: Urinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters are widely used in hospitalized patients. However, up to 56% of the catheters do not have an appropriate indication and some serious complications with the use of these catheters can occur. The main objective of our quality improvement project is to reduce the use of catheters without an appropriate indication by 25-50%, and to evaluate the affecting factors of our de-implementation strategy. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective interrupted time series analysis, several interventions to avoid inappropriate use of catheters will be conducted in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Firstly, we will define a list of appropriate indications for urinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters, which will restrict the use of catheters and urge catheter removal when the indication is no longer appropriate. Secondly, after the baseline measurements, the intervention will take place, which consists of a kick-off meeting, including a competitive feedback report of the baseline measurements, and education of healthcare workers and patients. Additional strategies based on the baseline data and local conditions are optional. The primary endpoint is the percentage of catheters with an inappropriate indication on the day of data collection before and after the de-implementation strategy. Secondary endpoints are catheter-related infections or other complications, catheter re-insertion rate, length of hospital (and ICU) stay and mortality. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the de-implementation strategy will be calculated. DISCUSSION: This study aims to reduce the use of urinary and intravenous catheters with an inappropriate indication, and as a result reduce the catheter-related complications. If (cost-) effective it provides a tool for a nationwide approach to reduce catheter-related infections and other complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry: NTR6015 . Registered 9 August 2016.

Accuracy of the Diagnosis of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia in a Referral-Based Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the diagnosis of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in a national database of a referral-based health care system, where preterm infants are often transferred back to regional hospitals before 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated preterm infants <32 weeks, born between 2004 and 2008 in the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam with a high-risk profile for BPD. In addition to patient characteristics and outcomes, we collected data on respiratory support at 36 weeks PMA. True incidence of BPD, defined as needing supplemental oxygen and/or positive pressure support at 36 weeks PMA, was compared with the diagnosis registered in the National Perinatal Registry. Two imputation algorithms for patients transferred before 36 weeks PMA were validated. RESULTS: We identified 243 preterm infants with a high-risk BPD profile. Sixty-seven percent of these infants had a correct BPD diagnosis recorded in the National Perinatal Registry, 2% had a false positive, and 31% a false negative diagnosis. Infants with a false negative diagnosis of BPD were twice as often transferred to a regional hospital before 36 weeks PMA compared with a true positive diagnosis. Imputation algorithms did not improve the accuracy of BPD registration. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of the diagnosis BPD in a national database in countries with a referral-based health care system may not be accurate. Optimizing data collection and monitoring data entry is necessary to improve BPD registration before data can be used for national and international benchmarking.