Use of the McIsaac Score to Predict Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Outpatient Nurse Phone Triage and Electronic Visits Compared With In-Person Visits: Retrospective Observational Study

• Main Authors: Jennifer L Pecina (Author), Leah M Nigon (Author), Kristine S Penza (Author), Martha A Murray (Author), Beckie J Kronebusch (Author), Nathaniel E Miller (Author), Teresa B Jensen (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: JMIR Publications, 2021-12-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1438-8871; 10.2196/25899
• Keywords: Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol 23, Iss 12, p e25899 (2021)

BackgroundThe McIsaac criteria are a validated scoring system used to determine the likelihood of an acute sore throat being caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) to stratify patients who need strep testing. ObjectiveWe aim to compare McIsaac criteria obtained during face-to-face (f2f) and non-f2f encounters. MethodsThis retrospective study compared the percentage of positive GAS tests by McIsaac score for scores calculated during nurse protocol phone encounters, e-visits (electronic visits), and in person f2f clinic visits. ResultsThere was no difference in percentages of positive strep tests between encounter types for any of the McIsaac scores. There were significantly more phone and e-visit encounters with any missing score components compared with f2f visits. For individual score components, there were significantly fewer e-visits missing fever and cough information compared with phone encounters and f2f encounters. F2f encounters were significantly less likely to be missing descriptions of tonsils and lymphadenopathy compared with phone and e-visit encounters. McIsaac scores of 4 had positive GAS rates of 55% to 68% across encounter types. There were 4 encounters not missing any score components with a McIsaac score of 0. None of these 4 encounters had a positive GAS test. ConclusionsMcIsaac scores of 4 collected during non-f2f care could be used to consider empiric treatment for GAS without testing if significant barriers to testing exist such as the COVID-19 pandemic or geographic barriers. Future studies should evaluate further whether non-f2f encounters with McIsaac scores of 0 can be safely excluded from GAS testing.