Asthma and COPD in primary health care, quality according to national guidelines: a cross-sectional and a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In recent decades international and national guidelines have been formulated to ensure that patients suffering from specific diseases receive evidence-based care. In 2004 the National Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (SoS) published guidelines concerning the management of patients with asthma and COPD. The guidelines identify quality indicators that should be fulfilled. The aim of this study was to survey structure and process indicators, according to the asthma and COPD guidelines, in primary health care, and to identify correlations between structure and process quality results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional study of existing structure by using a questionnaire, and a retrospective study of process quality based on a review of measures documented in asthma and COPD medical records. All 42 primary health care centres in the county council of Östergötland, Sweden, were included.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All centres showed high quality regarding structure, although there was a large difference in time reserved for Asthma and COPD Nurse Practice (ACNP). The difference in reserved time was reflected in process quality results. The time needed to reach the highest levels of spirometry and current smoking habit documentation was between 1 and 1 1/2 hours per week per 1000 patients registered at the centre. Less time resulted in fewer patients examined with spirometry, and fewer medical records with smoking habits documented. More time did not result in higher levels, but in more frequent contact with each patient. In the COPD group more time resulted in higher levels of pulse oximetry and weight registration.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>To provide asthma and COPD patients with high process quality in primary care according to national Swedish guidelines, at least one hour per week per 1000 patients registered at the primary health care centre should be reserved for ACNP.</p

Application of a theoretical model to evaluate COPD disease management

Background: Disease management programmes are heterogeneous in nature and often lack a theoretical basis. An evaluation model has been developed in which theoretically driven inquiries link disease management interventions to outcomes. The aim of this study is to methodically evaluate the impact of a disease management programme for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on process, intermediate and final outcomes of care in a general practice setting. Methods. A quasi-experimental research was performed with 12-months follow-up of 189 COPD patients in primary care in the Netherlands. The programme included patient education, protocolised a

Non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing for acute and chronic disease management in primary and secondary care.

The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out if prescribing by health professionals other than doctors delivers comparable outcomes to prescribing by doctors. Cochrane researchers collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found 46 studies. Key messages With appropriate training and support, nurses and pharmacists are able to prescribe medicines as part of managing a range of conditions to achieve comparable health management outcomes to doctors. The majority of studies focus on chronic disease management in higher-income counties where there is generally a moderate-certainty of evidence supporting similar outcomes for the markers of disease in high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Further high-quality studies are needed in poorer countries and to better quantify differences in prescribing outcomes for adverse events, and to determine health economic outcomes. Further studies could also focus more specifically on the prescribing component of care. What was studied in the review? A number of countries allow health professionals other than doctors to prescribe medicines. This shift in roles is thought to provide improved and timely access to medicines for consumers where there are shortages of doctors or the health system is facing pressures in coping with the burden of disease. In addition, this task shift has been supported by a number of governments as a way to more appropriately use the skills of health professionals, such as nurses and pharmacists, in the care of patients. We compared the outcomes of any healthcare workers who were prescribing with a high degree of autonomy with medical prescribers in the hospital or community setting in low-, middle- and high-income countries. What are the main results of the review? This review found 45 studies where nurses and pharmacists with high levels of prescribing autonomy were compared with usual care medical prescribers. A further study compared nurse prescribing with guideline support with usual nurse prescribing care. No studies were found with other health professionals or lay prescribers. Four nurse prescribing studies were undertaken in the low- and middle-income settings of Colombia, South Africa, Uganda, and Thailand. The remainder of studies were undertaken in high-income Western countries. Forty-two studies were based in a community setting, two studies were located in hospitals, one study in the workplace, and one study in an aged care facility. Prescribing was but one part of many health-related interventions, particularly in the management of chronic disease. The review found that the outcomes for non-medical prescribers were comparable to medical prescribers for: high blood pressure (moderate-certainty of evidence); diabetes control (high-certainty of evidence); high cholesterol (moderate-certainty of evidence); adverse events (low-certainty of evidence); patients adhering to their medication regimeans (moderate-certainty of evidence); patient satisfaction with care (moderate-certainty of evidence); and health-related quality of life (moderate-certainty of evidence). Pharmacists and nurses with varying levels of undergraduate, postgraduate, and specific on-the-job training related to the disease or condition were able to deliver comparable prescribing outcomes to doctors. Non-medical prescribers frequently had medical support available to facilitate a collaborative practice model

Cardiovascular screening in general practice in a low SES area

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lower social economic status (SES) is related to an elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk. A pro-active primary prevention CV screening approach in general practice (GP) might be effective in a region with a low mean SES. This approach, supported by a regional GP laboratory, was investigated on feasibility, attendance rate and proportion of persons identified with an elevated risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a region with a low mean SES, men and women aged ≥50/55 years, respectively, were invited for cardiovascular risk profiling, based on SCORE 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease and additional risk factors (family history, weight and end organ damage). Screening was performed by laboratory personnel, at the GP practice. Treatment advice was based on Dutch GP guidelines for cardiovascular risk management. Response rates were compared to those in five other practices, using the same screening method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>521 persons received invitations, 354 (68%) were interested, 33 did not attend and 43 were not further analysed because of already known diabetes/cardiovascular disease. Eventually 278 risk profiles were analysed, of which 60% had a low cardiovascular risk (SCORE-risk <5%). From the 40% participants with a SCORE-risk ≥5%, 60% did not receive medication yet for hypertension/hypercholesterolemia. In the other five GPs response rates were comparable to the currently described GP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Screening in GP in a low SES area, performed by a laboratory service, was feasible, resulted in high attendance, and identification and treatment advice of many new persons at risk for cardiovascular disease.</p