Necessity of office visits for acute respiratory infections in primary care
Family Practice, ISSN: 1460-2229, Vol: 33, Issue: 3, Page: 312-317
2016
- 37Citations
- 82Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations37
- Citation Indexes36
- 36
- CrossRef2
- Policy Citations1
- 1
- Captures82
- Readers82
- 82
Article Description
Background: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most common symptomatic reason to seek ambulatory care, but many ARI visits may not be necessary. Objective: To measure the proportion of primary care ARI visits that may not require an office visit. Methods: We identified 58398 ARI visits to 14 primary care practices between May 2011 and May 2012 and randomly selected 500 visits, 439 of which were new ARI visits. We separated non-visit-required information [e.g. history of present illness (HPI), past medical history, etc.] from information that required an office visit (e.g. physical exam, testing, etc.). Reviewing non-visit-required information, we identified the diagnosis (HPI diagnosis) and whether office visit appeared necessary. Independently, we reviewed the visit-required information and determined if the visit changed antibiotic management. Results: Based on non-visit-required information, 72% (316/439) of visits did not appear to require an office visit. The most common diagnoses were non-specific upper respiratory infection (39%), sinusitis (24%) and acute bronchitis (22%). The HPI diagnosis was an exact match for clinicians' diagnosis in 67% (213/316) of visits. After reviewing the visit-required information, antibiotic management did not change for 87% (276/316) of visits. For the remaining 13% (40/316) for which the visit changed management, the clinician prescribed an antibiotic for an antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (65%; 26/40); prescribed an antibiotic for a non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (25%; 10/40); or avoided an antibiotic prescription for patients with an HPI diagnosis of sinusitis (10%; 4/40). Conclusion: About two-thirds of primary care ARI visits may not be necessary for appropriate antibiotic management.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84978699282&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw019; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27048524; https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/fampra/cmw019; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw019; https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article-abstract/33/3/312/1749775?redirectedFrom=fulltext; http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/fampra/cmw019; https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article-pdf/33/3/312/6738003/cmw019.pdf; https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/33/3/312/1749775; http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/312; http://www.fampra.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/fampra/cmw019; https://academic.oup.com/fampra; http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/fampra/cmw019
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know