ArticleThe European journal of general practice2022
Safety netting advice for respiratory tract infections in out-of-hours primary care: A qualitative analysis of consultation videos.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Oral Antibacterial Drug Prescribing in Primary Care Out-of-Hours Services: A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial Stewardship in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: A Narrative Exploration of Antibiotic Overprescribing, Stewardship Interventions, and Performance Metrics.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- What did the EJGP do well in 2022, and What is the Journal's plan?The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) use safety netting advice to communicate with patients when and how to seek further help when their condition fails to improve or deteriorate. Although many respiratory tract infections (RTI) during out-of-hours (OOH) care are self-limiting, often antibiotics are prescribed. Providing safety netting advice could enable GPs to safely withhold an antibiotic prescription by dealing both with their uncertainty and the patients' concerns.
objectivesTo explore how GPs use safety netting advice during consultations on RTIs in OOH primary care and how this advice is documented in the electronic health record.
methodsWe analysed video observations of 77 consultations on RTIs from 19 GPs during OOH care using qualitative framework analysis and reviewed the medical records. Videos were collected from August until November 2018 at the Antwerp city GP cooperative, Belgium.
resultsSafety netting advice on alarm symptoms, expected duration of illness and/or how and when to seek help is often lacking or vague. Communication of safety netting elements is scattered throughout the end phase of the consultation. The advice is seldom recorded in the medical health record. GPs give more safety netting advice when prescribing an antibiotic than when they do not prescribe an antibiotic.
conclusionWe provided a better understanding of how safety netting is currently carried out in OOH primary care for RTIs. Safety netting advice during OOH primary care is limited, unspecific and not documented in the medical record.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.