BackgroundPrescribing of antibiotics for common infections varies widely, and there is no medical explanation. Systematic reviews have highlighted factors that may influence antibiotic prescribing and that this is a complex process. It is unclear how factors interact and how the primary care organization affects diagnostic procedures and antibiotic prescribing. Therefore, we sought to explore and understand interactions between factors influencing antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care.MethodsOur mixed methods design was guided by the Triangulation Design Model according to Creswell. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in parallel. Quantitative data were collected by prescription statistics, questionnaires to patients, and general practitioners’ audit registrations. Qualitative data were collected through observations and semi-structured interviews.ResultsFrom the analysis of the data from the different sources an overall theme emerged: A common practice in the primary health care centre is crucial for low antibiotic prescribing in line with guidelines. Several factors contribute to a common practice, such as promoting management and leadership, internalized guidelines including inter-professional discussions, the general practitioner’s diagnostic process, nurse triage, and patient expectation. These factors were closely related and influenced each other. The results showed that knowledge must be internalized and guidelines need to be normative for the group as well as for every individual.ConclusionsLow prescribing is associated with adapted and transformed guidelines within all staff, not only general practitioners. Nurses’ triage and self-care advice played an important role. Encouragement from the management level stimulated inter-professional discussions about antibiotic prescribing. Informal opinion moulders talking about antibiotic prescribing was supported by the managers. Finally, continuous professional development activities were encouraged for up-to-date knowledge.

Objective. To explore how a group of Swedish general practitioners (GPs) manage patients with a sore throat in relation to current guidelines as expressed in interviews. Design. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse semi-structured interviews. Setting. Swedish primary care. Subjects. A strategic sample of 25 GPs. Main outcome measures. Perceived management of sore throat patients. Results. It was found that nine of the interviewed GPs were adherent to current guidelines for sore throat and 16 were non-adherent. The two groups differed in terms of guideline knowledge, which was shared within the team for adherent GPs while idiosyncratic knowledge dominated for the non-adherent GPs. Adherent GPs had no or low concerns for bacterial infections and differential diagnosis whilst non-adherent GPs believed that in patients with a sore throat any bacterial infection should be identified and treated with antibiotics. Patient history and examination was mainly targeted by adherent GPs whilst for non-adherent GPs it was often redundant. Non-adherent GPs reported problems getting patients to abstain from antibiotics, whilst no such problems were reported in adherent GPs. Conclusion. This interview study of sore throat management in a strategically sampled group of Swedish GPs showed that while two-thirds were non-adherent and had a liberal attitude to antibiotics one-third were guideline adherent with a restricted view on antibiotics. Non-adherent GPs revealed significant knowledge gaps. Adherent GPs had discussed guidelines within the primary care team while non-adherent GPs had not. Guideline implementation thus seemed to be promoted by knowledge shared in team discussions.

BackgroundExcessive antibiotics use increases the risk of resistance. Previous studies have shown that the Centor score combined with Rapid Antigen Detection Test (RADT) for Group A Streptococci can reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in patients with sore throat. According to the former Swedish guidelines RADT was recommended with 2–4 Centor criteria present and antibiotics were recommended if the test was positive. C- reactive protein (CRP) was not recommended for sore throats. Inappropriate use of RADT and CRP has been reported in several studies.MethodsFrom a larger project 16 general practitioners (GPs) who stated management of sore throats not according to the guidelines were identified. Half-hour long semi-structured interviews were conducted. The topics were the management of sore throats and the use of near-patient tests. Qualitative content analysis was used.ResultsThe use of the near-patient test interplayed with the clinical assessment and the perception that all infections caused by bacteria should be treated with antibiotics. The GPs expressed a belief that the clinical picture was sufficient for diagnosis in typical cases. RADT was not believed to be relevant since it detects only one bacterium, while CRP was considered as a reliable numerical measure of bacterial infection.ConclusionsInappropriate use of near-patient test can partly be understood as remnants of outdated knowledge. When new guidelines are introduced the differences between them and the former need to be discussed more explicitly.

Evidence-based treatment guidelines for managing infections in health care are promoted as tools to prevent unnecessary use of antibiotics. Antibiotic misuse has been examined as regards the doctor-patient relation and the social context of medical practice. Less attention has been paid to how the very conceptualisation of human-microbial relations may influence understandings of antibiotic misuse. The article examines a medical controversy concerning guidelines for managing throat infection and antibiotic treatment in Sweden. It demonstrates how this controversy unfolds around two different ways of relating to a specific bacterium - Group A Streptococcus. The analysis shows how two 'microbiopolitics', involving different understandings of human-microbial relations, are created in the controversy and how different antibiotic prescribing practices are justified. By focusing on Group A Streptococcus, which is commonly observed, but also unpredictable and potentially dangerous, the article provides new insights into the relations between bacteria, humans and policy in an age of antimicrobial resistance. It argues, in particular, that the definition of antibiotic misuse is unstable and consequently that policy measures aimed at reducing misuse must be related to how specific infections and bacteria are conceptualised in the actual context the policy addresses.

BackgroundUncertainty is inevitable in clinical practice in primary care and tolerance for uncertainty and concern for bad outcomes has been shown to vary between physicians. Uncertainty is a factor for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Evidence-based guidelines as well as near-patient tests are suggested tools to decrease uncertainty in the management of patients with respiratory tract infections. The aim of this paper was to describe strategies for coping with uncertainty in patients with pharyngotonsillitis in relation to guidelines.MethodsAn interview study was conducted among a strategic sample of 25 general practitioners (GPs).ResultsAll GPs mentioned potential dangerous differential diagnoses and complications. Four strategies for coping with uncertainty were identified, one of which was compliant with guidelines, “Adherence to guidelines”, and three were idiosyncratic: “Clinical picture and C-reactive protein (CRP)”, “Expanded control”, and “Unstructured”. The residual uncertainty differed for the different strategies: in the strategy “Adherence to guidelines” and “Clinical picture and CRP” uncertainty was avoided, based either on adherence to guidelines or on the clinical picture and near-patient CRP; in the strategy “Expanded control” uncertainty was balanced based on expanded control; and in the strategy “Unstructured” uncertainty prevailed in spite of redundant examination and anamnesis.ConclusionThe majority of the GPs avoided uncertainty and deemed they had no problems. Their strategies either adhered to guidelines or comprised excessive use of tests. Thus use of guidelines as well as use of more near-patient tests seemed associated to reduced uncertainty, although the later strategy at the expense of compliance to guidelines. A few GPs did not manage to cope with uncertainty or had to put in excessive work to control uncertainty.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0452-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.