I don't expect a reply B, but just quoting so people know im...

I don't expect a reply B, but just quoting so people know im referring to this comment.

I think the misunderstanding here is in the use of the test. Emergency Department usage is for quick triage of patients. Its not about sending to the lab for 100% accuracy in diagnosing a bacterial from viral infection. Its simply a quick use tool to identify what someone may have. If it shows bacterial, then they triage to a more appropriate spot instead of sitting around the waiting room and taking up time and space.

In a GP setting, it is just to aid the GP diagnosis. At this stage, they make a diagnosis based on symptoms. Most GPs then run a PCR test which is specific to a pathogen only. It may not be correct in the diagnosis and they also may not use the PCR test, they just make their "experience" to diagnose. But herein lies the problem - antibiotics being issued on a diagnosis which could in fact be wrong. Doctors aren't all miracle workers and they do get things wrong, a lot.

I was once prescribed antibiotics for tonsilitis in my teens which was inherently wrong. I had an adverse reaction to the particular antibiotics and wound up in the ED with chest issues. Needless to say, have never seen that GP again.

The protocol needs to be in place for any doctor to want to use the test. In Australia, it needs to be TGA approved (it is) and needs to be on the PBS or whatever (its not) as it would be an out of pocket expense to the patient. The Government should be funding something like this to ease the pressure on EDs, wrongful diagnosis and prescription of drugs and to potentially ease the cost of a GP visit. They could have this test for sale in a pharmacy setting instead of at a GP office and ease the pressure on GPs as well.

I personally would bank money on anything 90+% accurate in this case as it isn't designed to tell you what pathogen you have, just whether you need antibiotics or not.