WHAT DO GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS DO WHEN PATIENTS PRESENT WITH SYMPTOMS INDICATIVE OF URINARY-TRACT INFECTIONS

Aim. The primary aim of the study was to examine whether the results o f laboratory investigations of midstream urine samples from patients w ith suspected urinary tract infection influenced management by general practitioners. Method. Eleven general practitioners in the Network pa rticipated in the study by recording treatment and outcomes for consec utive patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection. Results. Data from 216 patients were included in the study. Dipsticks were used to test the urine of 98 patients (45%) and midstream urine samples were s ent to the laboratory for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescri bed for 176 patients (82%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 95% of pat ients with symptoms of dysuria, frequency and urgency. Where the labor atory results showed infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioners received the results for 75 patients (85%). Among those patients where the laboratory reported no infection there was no change in treatment after the general practitioner received the results for 53 patients (87%). Conclusion. The results of laboratory investigation of midstream urine samples did not change the treatment provided for the majority of patients in the study.