Refine
Year of publication
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Primary care (2)
- Anticoagulant therapy (1)
- Anticoagulants (1)
- Chronic medical conditions (1)
- Colorectal cancer (1)
- Coping (1)
- Cross-sectional (1)
- Dementia (1)
- Depression (1)
- Elderly patients (1)
Institute
- Medizin (15)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
Objectives: Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.
Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.
Setting: 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.
Participants: 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.
Interventions: Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.
Outcome measures: The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months’ follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.
Results: At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0–5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI −0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).
Conclusions: The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.
Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.
Background: Among cancer care providers (CCPs), lack of knowledge constitutes an important barrier to the discussion of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use with patients. This study assessed CCPs’ needs and preferences regarding CAM information and training (I&T).
Methods: An online survey was completed by 209 general practitioners, 437 medical specialists, 159 oncology nurses and medical assistants, and 244 psychologists and social workers engaged in cancer care. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of individuals with distinct preference patterns regarding I&T content.
Results: CCPs prefer CAM I&T to be provided as lectures, information platforms on the internet, workshops, and e-mail newsletters. Concerning subject matters, many CCPs considered CAM therapy options for the treatment of a variety of cancer disease- and therapy-related symptoms to be very important (75%-72% of the sample); the same applies to an "overview of different CAM therapies" (74%). LCA identified 5 latent classes (LCs) of CCPs. All of them attached considerable importance to "medical indication," "potential side effects," and "tips for usage." LCs differed, however, in terms of overall importance ratings, the perceived importance of "patients’ reasons" for using specific CAM therapies, "case examples," and "scientific evidence." Notably, the 5 LCs were clearly present in all 4 occupational groups.
Conclusions: CAM I&T should provide CCPs with an overview of different CAM therapies and show how CAM might help in treating symptoms cancer patients frequently demonstrate (eg, fatigue). Moreover, I&T programs should be flexible and take into account that individual information needs vary even within the same occupational group.
Background: Expected growth in the demand for health services has generated interest in the more effective deployment of health care assistants. Programs encouraging German general practitioners (GPs) to share responsibility for care with specially qualified health care assistants in the family practice (VERAHs) have existed for several years. But no studies have been conducted on the tasks German GPs are willing to rely on specially qualified personnel to perform, what they are prepared to delegate to all non-physician practice staff and what they prefer to do themselves.
Methods: As part of an evaluation study on the deployment of VERAHs in GP-centered health care, we used a questionnaire to ask about task delegation within the practice team. From a list of tasks that VERAHs are specifically trained to carry out, GPs were asked to indicate which they actually delegate. We also asked GPs why they had employed a VERAH in their practice and for their opinions on the benefits and limitations of assigning tasks to VERAHs. The aim of the study was to find out which tasks GPs delegate to their specially qualified personnel, which they permit all HCAs to carry out, and which tasks they do not delegate at all.
Results: The survey was filled in and returned by 245 GPs (83%). Some tasks were exclusively delegated to VERAHs (e.g. home visits), while others were delegated to all HCAs (e.g. vaccinations). About half the GPs rated the assessment of mental health, as part of the comprehensive assessment of a patient’s condition, as the sole responsibility of a GP.
The possibility to delegate more complex tasks was the main reason given for employing a VERAH. Doctors said the delegation of home visits provided them with the greatest relief.
Conclusions: In Germany, where GPs are solely accountable for the health care provided in their practices, experience with the transfer of responsibility to other non-physician health care personnel is still very limited. When HCAs have undergone special training, GPs seem to be prepared to delegate tasks that demand a substantial degree of know-how, such as home visits and case management. This “new” role allocation within the practice may signal a shift in the provision of health care by family practice teams in Germany.
Objective: Our aim was to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) communicate with cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) in a patient-centred and case-specific manner.
Methods: We designed two cases of standardised breast cancer patients and allocated 29 GPs to hold a consultation either with Case 1 or Case 2. Case 1 presented with fears of possible physical side effects of hormone treatment. Case 2 feared a loss in social functioning because of nausea and emesis as possible side effects of chemotherapy. Consultations were audiotaped and analysed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). We analysed whether recommended CIM treatments and GPs' focus on psychosocial or medical and therapy-related content differed according to whether they were counselling Case 1 or Case 2.
Results: In consultations with Case 1, GPs rather focused on medical and therapy-related content and most often recommended mistletoe, diets and sports. In contrast, GPs focused on psychosocial content and they most often recommended methods of self-care when counselling Case 2.
Conclusion: The GPs in our sample reacted case-specifically to the patients' interest in CIM. Such responsive and patient-centred communication is a valuable resource but is often time-consuming. Adequate training and reimbursement should therefore be considered for GPs.