Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (12)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- polypharmacy (3)
- Oral anticoagulation (2)
- multimorbidity (2)
- Adverse drug reaction (1)
- Amitriptyline (1)
- Anticholinergic (1)
- Best-practice model (1)
- Case management (1)
- Center-specific time in therapeutic range (cTTR) (1)
- Elderly (1)
- Everolimus resistance (1)
- GIIb/IIIa-receptor (1)
- General practice (1)
- General practitioners (1)
- HDAC-inhibition (1)
- HIV protease inhibitors (1)
- Hemorrhage (1)
- Hospitalizations (1)
- Hospitals (1)
- Medication Appropriateness Index (1)
- Meta-analysis (1)
- Multimedication (1)
- Multimorbidity (1)
- Multiple-indication review (1)
- PAC-1 (1)
- Patients (1)
- Polypharmacy (1)
- Primary care (1)
- Quality of life (1)
- Renal cell carcinoma (1)
- Side effects (1)
- Thromboembolism (1)
- Time in therapeutic range (TTR) (1)
- Tumor growth (1)
- Vitamin K antagonists (1)
- accidental falls [MeSH] (1)
- aged [MesH] (1)
- anticholinergic burden (1)
- cdk2/cyclin A (1)
- computer-assisted drug therapy (1)
- continuity of care (1)
- elderly (1)
- evidence-based guideline (1)
- general practice (1)
- leucocytes (1)
- medication management (1)
- medication reconciliation (1)
- multimorbidity [MeSH] (1)
- multiple chronic conditions (1)
- patient centered care (1)
- platelets (1)
- prediction model (1)
- prognosis research (1)
- realist synthesis (1)
- stakeholder analysis (1)
Institute
Background and Aim: In Germany, the discharge medication is usually reported to the general practitioner (GP) by an inital short report (SR) /notification (handed over to the patient) and later by a more detailed discharge letter (DL) of the hospital.
Material and Method: We asked N=536 GPs (from Frankfurt/Main and Luebeck) after the typical report format of their patients discharge medication by the local hospitals. The questionnaire asked for 26 items covering (1) the designation of the medication (brand name, generic name) in SR and DL, (2) further specifications e.g. possibilities of generic substitution or supervision of sensible medications, (3) reasons why GPs do not follow the hospitals recommendations and (4) possibilities for an improvement in the medication-related communication between GP and hospitals.
Results: 39% GPs responded sufficiently to the questionnaire. The majority of the GPs (82%) quoted that in the SR only brand names are given (often or ever) and neither the generic name or any further information on generic substitution is available (seldom or never). 65% of the responders quoted that even in the DL only brand names are given. Only 41% of the responders quoted that further treatment relevant specifications are given (often or ever). 95% responded that new medications or change of custom medication is seldom or never explained in the DL and GP were not explicitly informed about relevant medication changes. 58% of the responders quoted economic reasons for re-adjustment of the discharge medication e.g. by generic substitution. The majority of responders (83%) are favouring (useful or very useful) a pre-discharge information (e.g. via fax) about the medication and 54% a hot-line to some relevant person in the hospital when treatment problems emerge. 67% of the responders quoted in favour of regular meetings between GPs and hospital doctors regarding actual pharmacotherapy.
Conclusion: In conclusion, our survey pointed to marked deficiencies in reporting the discharge medication to GPs.
Conflict of interest: None
Following publication of the data presented by von Minckwitz and colleagues it has been brought to our attention that some patients should be scored differently. Stable disease was seen in three of the eighteen patients instead of two of the eighteen patients: one patient with transitional cell carcinoma treated at 4 µg/kg scFv(FRP5)-ETA per day, and two breast cancer patients treated at 4 and 12.5 µg/kg scFv(FRP5)-ETA per day. Disease progression occured in 9 of the eighteen patients evaluated (see corrected Table 2 overleaf). This does not affect the conclusions of our study. In addition we would like to correct the following errors: patient IDs for patients U01 and U02 in the original Table 2 were interchanged. In addition, patient N03 had a grade 3 elevation of gamma-glutamyl transferase, and not grade 2 (see corrected Table 2 overleaf).
Background: Antithrombotic treatment is a continuous therapy that is often performed in general practice and requires careful safety management. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a best practice model that applies major elements of case management, including patient education, can improve antithrombotic management in primary health care in terms of reducing major thromboembolic and bleeding events.
Methods: This 24-month cluster-randomized trial will be performed in 690 adult patients from 46 practices. The trial intervention will be a complex intervention involving general practitioners, health care assistants and patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. To assess adherence to medication and symptoms in patients, as well as to detect complications early, health care assistants will be trained in case management and will use the Coagulation-Monitoring-List (Co-MoL) to regularly monitor patients. Patients will receive information (leaflets and a video), treatment monitoring via the Co-MoL and be motivated to perform self-management. Patients in the control group will continue to receive treatment-as-usual from their general practitioners. The primary endpoint is the combined endpoint of all thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization, and all major bleeding complications. Secondary endpoints are mortality, hospitalization, strokes, major bleeding and thromboembolic complications, severe treatment interactions, the number of adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and costs. Further secondary objectives will be investigated to explain the mechanism by which the intervention is effective: patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, general practitioners' and health care assistants' knowledge, patients' knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision making. Practice recruitment is expected to take place between July and December 2012. Recruitment of eligible patients will start in July 2012. Assessment will occur at three time points: baseline (T0), follow-up after 12 (T1) and after 24 months (T2).
Discussion: The efficacy and effectiveness of individual elements of the intervention, such as antithrombotic interventions, self-management concepts in orally anticoagulated patients and the methodological tool, case-management, have already been extensively demonstrated. This project foresees the combination of several proven instruments, as a result of which we expect to profit from a reduction in the major complications associated with antithrombotic treatment.
Background: In Germany, patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) are often treated by general practitioners (GPs), and large proportions of patients receive vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The quality of OAC in German GP practices, differences between various practices, and improvement potential through implementation of case management, have not yet been investigated satisfactorily.
Based on results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we aimed to assess whether OAC quality can be improved, any variations between practices exist and determine practice- and patient-level factors.
Methods: The PICANT trial (2012–2015) was performed in 52 GP practices in Hesse, Germany. Adult patients with long-term indication for OAC received best practice case management in the intervention group. International normalized ratio (INR) values were recorded from anticoagulation passes. The Rosendaal method was used to calculate Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) at patient level, and mean pooling to obtain center-specific TTR (cTTR) at practice level. The quality of OAC was assessed by TTR and cTTR. Linear model analyses were used to investigate associations between practice−/ patient-level factors and TTR.
Results: Inclusion of 736 patients (49.6% intervention and 50.4% control patients); 690 (93.8%) received phenprocoumon. Within 24 months, the TTR was 75.1% (SD 17.6) in the intervention versus 74.3% (SD 17.8) in the control group (p = 0.670). The cTTR averaged 75.1% (SD 6.5, range: 60.4 to 86.7%) in the intervention versus 74.3% (SD 7.2, range: 52.7 to 85.7%) in the control group (p = 0.668). At practice level, the TTR was significantly lower in practices with a male physician and certification in quality management. At patient level, the TTR was significantly higher in patients with moderate to high compliance, in men, and in patients that performed self-management. The TTR was significantly lower in patients with certain comorbidities, and who were hospitalized.
Conclusions: The intervention did not effectively improve OAC quality compared to routine care. Quality of INR control was generally good, but considerable variation existed between GP practices. The variability indicates optimization potential in some practices. The demonstrated association between patient-level factors and TTR highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics that may impede achieving high quality therapeutic outcomes.
Trial registration: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41847489, registered 27 February 2012.
Purpose: To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients’ assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA knowledge, patient knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision-making.
Methods: Cluster-randomized controlled trial undertaken at 52 general practices in Germany with adult patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. The complex intervention included training for healthcare assistants, information and quality circles for general practitioners and 24 months of case management for patients. Assessment was after 12 and 24 months. The intention-to-treat population included all randomized practices and patients, while the per-protocol analysis included only those that received treatment without major protocol violations.
Results: The mean (SD) age of the 736 patients was 73.5 (9.4) years and 597 (81.1%) had atrial fibrillation. After 24 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 (11.0%) intervention and 48 (12.9%) control patients (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; P = .37). Patients’ perceived quality of care, their knowledge, and HCAs’ knowledge, had improved significantly at 24 months. The other secondary endpoints did not differ between groups. In the intervention group, hospital admissions were significantly reduced in patients that received treatment without major protocol deviations.
Conclusions: Even though the main outcomes did not differ significantly, the intervention appears to have positively influenced several process parameters under "real-world conditions".