Adoption of C-reactive protein rapid tests for the management of acute childhood infections in hospitals in the Netherlands and England: a comparative health systems analysis

BACKGROUND

The adoption of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests (CRP POCTs) in hospitals varies across Europe. We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to different levels of adoption of CRP POCTs for the management of acute childhood infections in two countries.

METHODS

Comparative qualitative analysis of the implementation of CRP POCTs in the Netherlands and England. The study was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Data were collected through document analysis and qualitative interviews with stakeholders. Documents were identified by a scoping literature review, search of websites, and through the stakeholders. Stakeholders were sampled purposively initially, and then by snowballing. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Forty-one documents resulted from the search and 46 interviews were conducted. Most hospital healthcare workers in the Netherlands were familiar with CRP POCTs as the tests were widely used and trusted in primary care. Moreover, although diagnostics were funded through similar Diagnosis Related Group reimbursement mechanisms in both countries, the actual funding for each hospital was more constrained in England. Compared to primary care, laboratory-based CRP tests were usually available in hospitals and their use was encouraged in both countries because they were cheaper. However, CRP POCTs were perceived as useful in some hospitals of the two countries in which the laboratory could not provide CRP measures 24/7 or within a short timeframe, and/or in emergency departments where expediting patient care was important.

CONCLUSIONS

CRP POCTs are more available in hospitals in the Netherlands because of the greater familiarity of Dutch healthcare workers with the tests which are widely used in primary care in their country and because there are more funding constraints in England. However, most hospitals in the Netherlands and England have not adopted CRP POCTs because the alternative CRP measurements from the hospital laboratory are available in a few hours and at a lower cost.

Adoption of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests for the management of acute childhood infections in primary care in the Netherlands and England: a comparative health systems analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of point of care (POC) tests varies across Europe, but research into what drives this variability is lacking. Focusing on CRP POC tests, we aimed to understand what factors contribute to high versus low adoption of the tests, and also to explore whether they are used in children.

METHODS

We used a comparative qualitative case study approach to explore the implementation of CRP POC tests in the Netherlands and England. These countries were selected because although they have similar primary healthcare systems, the availability of CRP POC tests in General Practices is very different, being very high in the former and rare in the latter. The study design and analysis were informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Data were collected through a review of documents and interviews with stakeholders. Documents were identified through a scoping literature review, search of websites, and stakeholder recommendation. Stakeholders were selected purposively initially, and then by snowballing. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-five documents were reviewed and 21 interviews were conducted. The difference in the availability of CRP POC tests is mainly because of differences at the wider national context level. In the two countries, early adopters of the tests advocated for their implementation through the generation of robust evidence and by engaging with all relevant stakeholders. This led to the inclusion of CRP POC tests in clinical guidelines in both countries. In the Netherlands, this mandated their reimbursement in accordance with Dutch regulations. Moreover, the prevailing better integration of health services enabled operational support from laboratories to GP practices. In England, the funding constraints of the National Health Service and the prioritization of alternative and less expensive antimicrobial stewardship interventions prevented the development of a reimbursement scheme. In addition, the lack of integration between health services limits the operational support to GP practices. In both countries, the availability of CRP POC tests for the management of children is a by-product of the test being available for adults. The tests are less used in children mainly because of concerns regarding their accuracy in this age-group.

CONCLUSIONS

The engagement of early adopters combined with a more favourable and receptive macro level environment, including the role of clinical guidelines and their developers in determining which interventions are reimbursed and the operational support from laboratories to GP practices, led to the greater adoption of the tests in the Netherlands. In both countries, CRP POC tests, when available, are less used less in children. Organisations considering introducing POC tests into primary care settings need to consider how their implementation fits into the wider health system context to ensure achievable plans.