Discussion
Of those who visit a doctor with a respiratory tract infection, one third receive antibiotics. Of these, 41 % are given phenoxymethylpenicillin, and the remaining 59 % mainly macrolide antibiotics. Prescribing practices seem to deviate from guidelines both in terms of higher prescription rates and greater use of broad-spectrum antibiotics than recommended (2). According to guidelines, bronchitis should not be treated with antibiotics as it is most often caused by a virus (1). Nevertheless, in Norway more than half of those diagnosed with bronchitis do receive antibiotics (2). Children with respiratory tract infections are given macrolides and broad-spectrum antibiotics more frequently than adults. The palatable taste of the mixture improves compliance and is a likely explanation for this (3).
Why do doctors prescribe antibiotics in cases of doubt? In an Icelandic study (4), uncertainty over the causative agent and the diagnosis, and the limited time available in which to observe the patient were cited as reasons for prescribing antibiotics. The potential for the doctor-patient relationship to be damaged by disagreement over the need for antibiotic treatment was also highlighted. Others suggested that it is better to treat than «to do nothing» and that not prescribing antibiotics can be perceived as a failure by the doctor to appreciate the patient's difficulties. A previous bad experience with a poor outcome in an earlier patient could lead to a doctor prescribing antibiotics «for safety’s sake». Time constraints, and expectations of patients and relatives regarding antibiotics, were also cited as reasons. Similar findings have been reported in several other studies (5) – (8). Interestingly enough, in a number of cases there was a discrepancy between the doctor’s interpretation and the wishes of the patient/relatives.
In the casualty clinic where the patient is continually met by new and often young doctors, there can be uncertainty on the part of both patient and doctor. The doctor can safeguard the situation by asking the patient to return if there is any deterioration. Our patient should have been given a more thorough explanation of the expected disease course and been encouraged to contact his general practitioner rather than the casualty clinic if there was no improvement. Training in the provision of good quality information about antibiotics, expected disease course and when to contact the doctor again, has been shown to improve patient acceptance of lower prescription rates (9).
This patient was perceived by doctors as subjectively suffering and expecting to receive antibiotics. He seemed anxious, and the doctors interpreted this as a wish for treatment just to be on the safe side. The patient kept returning to the casualty clinic and these factors combined to produce overtreatment. The treatment had severe side effects, namely vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea and dehydration. The palpitations might have been a side effect of salbutamol or a symptom of dehydration or stress.
Instead of simply having his antibiotics discontinued, the patient was also prescribed metoclopramide to combat vomiting and nausea. One should think carefully before treating medication side effects with new medications. Dystonia is a common side effect of metoclopramide and affects between 1/10 and 1/100. Children are particularly vulnerable, and metoclopramide must be used at lower doses in children under the age of 15 years (10). Regrettably, in our case the boy was given an adult dosage.
The patient had previously undergone extensive investigation despite his young age, without anything abnormal being found. In the discharge summary, which we subsequently obtained from the hospital, the question was raised as to whether his symptoms could be psychogenic, but we have no information from the GP regarding follow-up of this issue. Uncertainty and anxiety in patients can be misinterpreted by doctors as expectation of further investigation and active treatment, while patients’ uncertainty over their own health can also lead them to repeatedly contact the health care services. Repeated contact is a signal that doctors are trained to take seriously. The result is therefore often extensive examination, referral to second-line services, or overtreatment, as was the case here.
The ECG findings in this patient were non-specific and probably of no significance. An earlier cardiac assessment had concluded that his heart was healthy. This illustrates some of the drawbacks of carrying out ever-new tests. Each test brings with it the possibility of detecting further discrepancies that serve only to increase uncertainty rather than narrow down the diagnosis (11).
Antibiotics were unnecessary in this patient. With such a short illness it was too early to suspect atypical pneumonia, and a CRP value of 11 offered no evidence for a bacterial respiratory tract infection.
Are there any negative consequences of restrictive prescribing practices? A marginally higher incidence of mastoiditis is found in countries with lower antibiotic use (12). One study reported that 0.5 – 1.5 % of patients with bronchitis who were not given antibiotics subsequently contacted their doctor again with pneumonia that needed treatment (13). Another study (14) showed a possible slight increase in mortality from pneumonia outside hospital with stricter prescribing practices, but this study has been criticised for serious methodological failings (12).
We believe that fear of complications and concern that the patient might not seek medical help in the event of deterioration were the main reasons for overtreatment in our case. We also believe that these are important reasons for treatment in many cases of doubt. One study found that patients were equally satisfied whether or not they received antibiotics (7), but it takes more time not to prescribe. Indeed, a correlation has been shown between a busy doctor and a higher prescription rate (2).
It takes time to reassure patients and their families by providing good quality information, making sure that they understand this information and that they can accept responsibility for contacting a doctor again if the condition worsens and the disease course is not as expected. It is a pity if doctors prescribe antibiotics to be «nice» to patients without even knowing whether they are interested in treatment on the basis of minimal evidence «just in case». It can, as here, lead to overtreatment and unnecessary discomfort for the patient. For society as a whole, it has major negative consequences in terms of increased antibiotic resistance. In cases of doubt, it can help to ask the patient for his/her thoughts regarding treatment.
The last doctor wrote in the consultation notes that he had reassured the patient that his body would resolve the problem perfectly well without medication. That was the last consultation. Good quality, sound information is often good treatment. In our eagerness to be effective doctors we must not forget our commitment to first do no harm. To do «nothing» is also to do something.