Why are we misdiagnosing urinary tract infection in older patients? A qualitative inquiry and roadmap for staff behaviour change in the emergency department
Key summary points
This study sough to determine the psychological and behavioural factors contributing to the incorrect diagnosis of urinary tract infection in older adults and identify potential interventions that can address the incorrect diagnosis of urinary tract infection in older adults?
The findings were that the misdiagnosis of UTI, particularly in older people, is driven by complex, interconnected psychological and behavioural factors, such as lack of knowledge on the role of urine dip testing, bias towards older people, automatic testing, time and resource constraints, pressures from peers and patients and legal pressures. Developing interventions that address the disconnect between knowledge and practice by encompassing both psychological and behavioural factors may improve patient safety and staff satisfaction.
Urine dipstick testing in the ED is often misinterpreted, leading to misdiagnosis which may then impact negatively on patient safety; the reasons this knowledge-practice disconnect exists are multi-factorial, but psychological and behavioural factors play a significant role. Systematic approaches incorporating these factors can potentially improve patient safety, efficiency, costs from unnecessary testing and staff satisfaction.
The aim of this study was to identify the psychological and behavioural factors influencing clinicians managing older people with possible UTI in urgent care settings, and to develop an improvement roadmap.
Michie’s behaviour change wheel and COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour Change) models were used as the theoretical basis for this study. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 21 purposively selected medical and nursing staff in a large urban emergency department in the East Midlands, United Kingdom. Analysis was informed by the framework approach. A participatory design approach was used to develop an improvement roadmap.
Key themes emerging from the semi-structured interviews included lack of knowledge on the role of urine dipstick testing, bias towards older people, automatic testing, time and resource constraints, pressures from peers and patients, and fear of the legal consequences of inaction. A thematic networks map indicated complex interactions between psychological and behavioural factors. Among more than 50 different intervention ideas identified by the workshop participants, two interventions were prioritised for implementation: i) controlling the use of dip stick urine tests; ii) providing individualised feedback to staff regarding the outcomes of patients diagnosed and treated for UTI.
Psychological and behavioural factors play a significant role in the misdiagnosis of UTI in older people. Systematic approaches incorporating these factors might improve patient outcomes. Future studies should focus on implementation and evaluating their effectiveness and sustainability.
KeywordsOlder people Urinary tract infection Qualitative research Implementation
We are grateful to the staff (interviewees and stakeholders) who invested their time to discuss this issue, as well as to the follow colleagues who supported the project at various stages: Dr Natasha Lander, Dr Amelia Bull, Dr Kate Russ, Dr Emma Zain, Dr Muzamil Abbas, Dr Syed Babar.
Compliance with ethical standards
The project was funded by the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) via a Specialist Registrar Start-up Grant. Carvalho was funded by the Science without Borders programme (CNPq Brazil). The funders had no role in the study design, the conduct or the reporting.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
The interview study did not require ethical approval (following discussion with the UK National Research Ethics Service) but it was registered with the National Institute for Health Research Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission (reference 183694). Ethical approval for the phase “Stakeholder workshops—intervention development” was obtained from Loughborough University.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary tract infections in adults. London2015Google Scholar
- 2.SIGN. Management of suspected bacterial urinary tract infection in adults. A national clinical guideline. 2006Google Scholar
- 3.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of suspected bacterial urinary tract infection in adults. 2012Google Scholar
- 4.Nicolle LE, Gupta K, Bradley SF, Colgan R, DeMuri GP, Drekonja D et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of Americaa. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy1121
- 9.Manepalli J, Grossberg GT, Mueller C (1990) Prevalence of delirium and urinary tract infection in a psychogeriatric unit. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 3(4):198–202Google Scholar
- 13.Ninan S, Walton C, Barlow S. Investigation of suspected urinary tract infection in older people.. Britsh Medical Journal. 2014Google Scholar
- 16.Genao L, Buhr GT (2012) Urinary Tract Infections in Older Adults Residing in Long-Term Care Facilities. Ann Longterm Care. 20(4):33–38Google Scholar
- 21.Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Analyzing qualitative data. In: Bryman A, Burgess R (eds) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Routledge, London, pp 173–194Google Scholar
- 22.Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The APEASE criteria for designing and evaluating interventions. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014Google Scholar
- 23.Fusch P, Ness L. Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research2015Google Scholar
- 27.Little P, Stuart B, Moore M, Coenen S, Butler CC, Godycki-Cwirko M et al (2013) Amoxicillin for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care when pneumonia is not suspected: a 12-country, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 13(2):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70300-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar