Dataset Information

Effect of faecal calprotectin testing on referrals for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently seen in primary care, yet general practitioners (GPs) often experience challenges distinguishing functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) from organic disorders. We, therefore, aim to evaluate whether a test strategy that includes point-of-care testing (POCT) for faecal calprotectin (FCal) can reduce the referral rate to paediatric specialist care among children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. The study findings will contribute to improving the recommendations on FCal use among children in primary care.

Methods and analysis

In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we will randomise general practices into intervention and control groups. The intervention group will use FCal-POCT when indicated, after completing online training about its indication, interpretation and follow-up as well as communicating an FGID diagnosis. The control group will test and treat according to Dutch GP guidelines, which advise against FCal testing in children. GPs will include children aged 4-18 years presenting to primary care with chronic diarrhoea and/or recurrent abdominal pain. The primary outcome will be the referral rate for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms within 6 months after the initial assessment. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by questionnaires completed at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. These outcomes will include parental satisfaction and concerns, gastrointestinal symptoms, impact of symptoms on daily function, quality of life, proportion of children with paediatrician-diagnosed FGID referred to secondary care, health service use and healthcare costs. A sample size calculation indicates that we need to recruit 158 GP practices to recruit 406 children.

Ethics and dissemination

The Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of the University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands) approved this study (MREC number: 201900309). The study results will be made available to patients, GPs, paediatricians and laboratories via peer-reviewed publications and in presentations at (inter)national conferences.

Trial registration number

The Netherlands Trial Register: NL7690 (Pre-results).

SUBMITTER: Ansems S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8311316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle change program, effectively reduces the risk of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes but is underutilized. An implementation study using formative research was undertaken to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals at a primary care clinic.Study designA pragmatic, cluster randomized, mixed-methods study.Setting/particpantsClusters were teams of primary care clinicians from 2 primary care clinics. The 3 intervention clusters had 8-11 clinicians, and the 3 control clusters had 7-20 clinicians.InterventionImplementation activities occurred from December 2017 to February 2019. The activities included targeted clinician education, a prediabetes clinician champion, and a custom electronic health record report identifying patients with prediabetes.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was referral of patients with prediabetes to the institutional Diabetes Prevention Program. Study data, including patient demographic and clinical variables, came from electronic health record. Interviews with clinicians evaluated the implementation strategies. Generalized estimating equation analyses that accounted for multiple levels of correlation and interview content analysis occurred in 2019.ResultsStudy clinicians cared for 2,992 patients with a prediabetes diagnosis or HbA1c indicative of prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%). Clinicians in the intervention clusters referred 6.9% (87 of 1,262) of patients with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program and those in the control clusters referred 1.5% (26 of 1,730). When adjusted for patient age, sex, race, HbA1c value, HbA1c test location, and insurance type, intervention clinicians had 3.85 (95% CI=0.40, 36.78) greater odds of referring a patient with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The 11 interviewed intervention clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of the interventions, reporting the prediabetes clinic champion (n=7, 64%) and educational presentations (n=6, 55%) as most helpful.ConclusionsIntervention clinicians were more likely to make Diabetes Prevention Program referrals; however, the study lacked power to achieve statistical significance. Clinician interviews suggested that intervention components that triggered Diabetes Prevention Program referrals varied among clinicians.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent encounters in General Practice. Investigation and referral remain common despite the self-limiting character of episodes that are not largely attributable to specific underlying injuries. Identifying patients' ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) is a well-established element within consultation skills training and has been shown to improve prescribing. It can be a powerful communication tool setting the base for transferring and adjusting adequate clinical information. This study aims to evaluate whether ICE can decrease unnecessary medicine in the management of acute LBP in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Research question: Does ICE training intervention have an effect on doctors' referrals of patients suffering from acute LBP? Population: Recruitment to this parallel cluster randomised trial will take place among general practitioners belonging to four independent practice networks in Northern Bavaria/Germany. Intervention: At baseline, 24 out of 48 doctors will be randomly assigned to take part in a 1-day training session covering theoretical background and clinical implementation of patient-centred communication by stimulating ICE. They will also be given access to a web-based supporting tool for reflective practice on their communication skills. Comparison: GPs in the control group will continue consultations as usual. Outcome: Outcome measures are referrals to diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy and specialists obtained from routine practice data, compared between intervention and control group. Time: Referrals of patients consulting their doctors for documented LBP will be monitored up to 3 months after the ICE training intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval for the study was obtained by the Ethics Committee of the University Erlangen-Nuremberg (296_17B). Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03711071).

Project description:BackgroundThere has been an increase in the numbers of patients presenting to primary care with suspected colorectal malignancy and subsequently an increase in demand for endoscopy. This study aims to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) compared to conventional diagnostic tests as a primary investigation for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy.MethodsRetrospectively, 1950 patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy who were referred through primary care and underwent investigations through standard endoscopic evaluation were included. These patients were used to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing creating theoretical data for sensitivity and specificity. Outcome measures included: the number of investigations under current protocol; cost of current investigations; number of predicted false negatives and false positives and positive/negative predictive values using current sensitivity data for FIT; the cost forecast of using FIT as the primary investigation for colorectal malignancy.ResultsMedian age was 65 (IQR 47-82) with 43.7% male and 56.3% female. A total of 1950 investigations were carried out with a diagnostic yield of 26 cancers (18 colon, 8 rectal), 138 polyps and 29 high risk adenomas (HGD ± > 10 mm). In total, £713,948 was spent on the investigations. The commonest investigation was colonoscopy totalling £533,169. The total cost per cancer diagnosis was £27,459. Sensitivity (92.1% CI 86.9-95.3) and specificity (85.8% CI 78.3-90.1) for FIT in colorectal cancer was taken from NICE and was costed via the manufacturer(s). The projected total cost of FIT for the same population using a ≥ 4 μg haemoglobin cut off was £415,680 (£15,554 per cancer). The total cost of high-risk polyps using ≥ 4 μg cut off was £404,427 (sensitivity 71.2% CI 60.5-87.2, specificity 79.8%CI 76.1-83.7) or £13,945 per polyp.ConclusionsFIT is a cheaper and effective alternative test with the potential to replace current expensive methods. The forecast is based on the limited data available for sensitivity/specificity in the current literature. FIT has now been commenced for symptomatic patients in the UK and therefore sensitivity may change in the future.