Helicobacter pylori test & treat strategy for dyspepsia: a qualitative study exploring the barriers and how to overcome them.

BACKGROUND The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance that recommends that all dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, irrespective of age, that relapse after one month's proton pump inhibitor, should be offered test and treat for Helicobacter pylori. OBJECTIVE To explore the views of primary care about introducing the helicobacter test and treat NICE dyspepsia guidance. METHODS In 15 urban and rural general practices in Central England, primary health care staff involved in the management of dyspepsia took part in qualitative focus groups to discuss the draft NICE guidance and how it might be implemented. RESULTS Practices expressed concern that test and treat may not be cost-effective in younger patients and that they may miss malignancy, in older patients and in patients who relapse after triple treatment, without a further helicobacter test or endoscopy. The greatest practical barriers to test and treat were the considerable impact on nurses' and doctors' time to explain, undertake tests and report results to patients, and practice budgets from urea breath test and triple treatment costs. Staff preferred stool tests to breath tests, as they impacted less on practice budget and time. GPs did not favour prescribing the three components of the triple treatment separately. CONCLUSIONS GPs will need reassurance that test and treat will not lead to missed malignancies. The financial costs and staffing implications of NICE dyspepsia guidance will need to be discussed locally by Primary Care Trusts, microbiology laboratories, gastroenterologists and pharmacy advisors and implemented with local guidance, increased communication and education.

[1]  C. Mcnulty,et al.  Variation in the use of H. pylori tests in UK general practice – a qualitative study , 2005, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[2]  C. Mcnulty,et al.  Test and treat for dyspepsia—but which test? , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  A. Barkun,et al.  Economic evaluation of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the CADET‐Hp randomized controlled trial of H. pylori‐positive primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia , 2004, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[4]  T. Dean,et al.  An evaluation of the impact of NICE guidance on GP prescribing. , 2004, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[5]  A. Fendrick,et al.  Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat intervention compared to usual care in primary care patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease in the United States , 2002, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[6]  D. Graham,et al.  Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. , 2001, Seminars in gastrointestinal disease.

[7]  N. Vakil,et al.  Blood, urine, stool, breath, money, andHelicobacter pylori , 2001, Gut.

[8]  Danesh Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric cancer: systematic review of the epidemiological studies , 1999, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[9]  D. Forman,et al.  Gastric cancer, cytotoxin-associated gene A-positive Helicobacter pylori, and serum pepsinogens: an international study. The Eurogst Study Group. , 1999, Gastroenterology.

[10]  A D Oxman,et al.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. , 1995, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[11]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[12]  R. Holder,et al.  Acceptability of opportunistic screening for occult gastrointestinal blood loss. , 1992, BMJ.

[13]  S. Eckstein The research governance framework for health and social care , 2003 .