Reducing unnecessary consultation - a case of NNNT? |
||
|
by
Tom Marshall Specialist Registrar in Public Health Medicine Northamptonshire Health Authority IntroductionReaders of Bandolier will be familiar with the concept of NNT as a convenient summary of the beneficial impact of a treatment. But what if the treatment has an effect - such as encouraging unnecessary consultation - which we want to avoid? We could think of this in terms of NNNT (numbers needed to not treat). Consultation for throat infectionThroat infection is a common reason for a GP consultation. There is not much support for using antibiotics. The Cochrane Collaboration's most recent review confirmed the extremely modest effects of antibiotics in reducing the duration of throat infection [1]. Because simple analgesics are all that is needed, dealing with it can also be a frustrating exercise. Yet patients still consult. Could GPs have an influence on this pattern of behaviour? A recent randomised controlled trial explored this question in a novel way [2].Patients were randomly allocated to immediate antibiotics, an offer of delayed antibiotics (three days later, if symptoms persisted) and no antibiotics. However, patients were not blind to their treatment. The clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction were the same for each strategy. However, compared to either offering a delayed prescription or not prescribing, issuing a prescription for an antibiotic tended to persuade patients that they were effective. It also affected their intention to consult in the future. Numbers-needed-to-not-treat (NNNT)From this we can work out a NNNT (numbers needed to not treat - Table 1). For every 3 patients we "not treat" (avoid or delay prescribing antibiotics) we persuade an additional one that they are not effective. Similarly for every 4 patients whom we "not treat" we persuade one that they need not consult with the problem in the future. |
| Table 1: Effect of prescribing an antibiotic for throat infection on patients' beliefs and intentions | |||
| Effect on patient | Penicillin V prescribed | No Penicillin V or offer delayed for 3 days | NNNT |
| Believe "antibiotics are effective" | 87% | 57% | 3 |
| Say that they "will consult next time" | 79% | 55% | 4 |
| "satisfied" with consultation | 96% (ns) | 92% (ns) | |
| Rather than simply relying on patients' stated intentions, a follow up to the initial study looked at the factors which led patients who had suffered one throat infection to consult again in the next year [3]. Again the message was fairly clear. An immediate prescription for antibiotics increases the number of patients who consult again (Table 2). It was also clear that those patients who did consult again were much more likely to have been prescribed antibiotics for throat infection at some time in the past. |
| Table 2: How prescribing antibiotics affects patients' re-attendance with throat infection | |||
| Effect on patient | Penicillin V prescribed | No Penicillin V or offer delayed for 3 days | NNNT |
| Consult again with throat infection | 38% | 27% | 10 |
| Penicillin V prescribed in the past | No Penicillin V prescribed in the past | NNNT | |
| Consult again with throat infection | 50% | 27% | 4 |
ConclusionWe can sum this up by illustrating what would happen if a GP prescribed antibiotics to 100 fewer patients with throat infection in a year. Thirty three fewer would believe antibiotics were effective, 25 fewer would intend to consult with the problem in the future and 10 fewer would come back within the next year. Game, set and match to masterly inactivity.References:
|
previous or next story in this issue