The quality of communication about older patients between hospital physicians and general practitioners: a panel study assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Optimal care of patients is dependent on good professional interaction between general practitioners and general hospital physicians. In Norway this is mainly based upon referral and discharge letters. The main objectives of this study were to assess the quality of the written communication between physicians and to estimate the number of patients that could have been treated at primary care level instead of at a general hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study comprised referral and discharge letters for 100 patients above 75 years of age admitted to orthopaedic, pulmonary and cardiological departments at the city general hospital in Trondheim, Norway. The assessments were done using a Delphi technique with two expert panels, each with one general hospital specialist, one general practitioner and one public health nurse using a standardised evaluation protocol with a visual analogue scale (VAS). The panels assessed the quality of the description of the patient's actual medical condition, former medical history, signs, medication, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), social network, need of home care and the benefit of general hospital care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While information in the referral letters on actual medical situation, medical history, symptoms, signs and medications was assessed to be of high quality in 84%, 39%, 56%, 56% and 39%, respectively, the corresponding information assessed to be of high quality in discharge letters was for actual medical situation 96%, medical history 92%, symptoms 60%, signs 55% and medications 82%. Only half of the discharge letters had satisfactory information on ADL. Some two-thirds of the patients were assessed to have had large health benefits from the general hospital care in question. One of six patients could have been treated without a general hospital admission. The specialists assessed that 77% of the patients had had a large benefit from the general hospital care; however, the general practitioners assessment was only 59%. One of four of the discharge letters did not describe who was responsible for follow-up care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study from one general hospital both referral and discharge letters were missing vital medical information, and referral letters to such an extent that it might represent a health hazard for older patients. There was also low consensus between health professionals at primary and secondary level of what was high benefit of care for older patients at a general hospital.</p

Effects of lifestyle intervention in persons at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus - results from a randomised, controlled trial

Background: Lifestyle change is probably the most important single action to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a low-intensity individual lifestyle intervention by a physician and compare this to the same physician intervention combined with an interdisciplinary, group-based approach in a real-life setting. Methods: The “Finnish Diabetes Risk score” (FINDRISC) was used by GPs to identify individuals at high risk. A randomised, controlled design and an 18 month follow-up was used to assess the effect of individual lifestyle counselling by a physician (individual physician group, (IG)) every six months, with emphasis on diet and exercise, and compare this to the same individual lifestyle counselling combined with a group-based interdisciplinary program (individual and interdisciplinary group, (IIG)) provided over 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were changes in lifestyle indicated by weight reduction ≥ 5%, improvement in exercise capacity as assessed by VO2 max and diet improvements according to the Smart Diet Score (SDS). Results: 213 participants (104 in the IG and 109 in the IIG group, 50% women), with a mean age of 46 and mean body mass index 37, were included (inclusion rate > 91%) of whom 182 returned at follow-up (drop-out rate 15%). There were no significant differences in changes in lifestyle behaviours between the two groups. At baseline 57% (IG) and 53% (IIG) of participants had poor aerobic capacity and after intervention 35% and 33%, respectively, improved their aerobic capacity at least one metabolic equivalent. Unhealthy diets according to SDS were common in both groups at baseline, 61% (IG) and 60% (IIG), but uncommon at follow-up, 17% and 10%, respectively. At least 5% weight loss was achieved by 35% (IG) and 28% (IIG). In the combined IG and IIG group, at least one primary outcome was achieved by 93% while all primary outcomes were achieved by 6%. Most successful was the 78% reduction in the proportion of participants with unhealthy diet (almost 50% absolute reduction). Conclusion: It is possible to achieve important lifestyle changes in persons at risk for type 2 diabetes with modest clinical efforts. Group intervention yields no additional effects. The design of the study, with high inclusion and low dropout rates, should make the results applicable to ordinary clinical settings

Training Primary Care Physicians to Employ Self-Efficacy-Enhancing Interviewing Techniques: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Standardized Patient Intervention

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) have few tools for enhancing patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of myriad health-influencing behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether brief standardized patient instructor (SPI)-delivered training increases PCPs’ use of self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two family physicians and general internists from 12 primary care offices drawn from two health systems in Northern California. INTERVENTIONS: Experimental arm PCPs received training in the use of SEE IT training during three outpatient SPI visits scheduled over a 1-month period. Control arm PCPs received a single SPI visit, during which they viewed a diabetes treatment video. All intervention visits (experimental and control) were timed to last 20 min. SPIs portrayed patients struggling with self-care of depression and diabetes in the first 7 min, then delivered the appropriate intervention content during the remaining 13 min. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was provider use of SEE IT (a count of ten behaviors), coded from three audio-recorded standardized patient visits at 1–3 months, again involving depression and diabetes self-care. Two five-point scales measured physician responses to training: Value (7 items: quality, helpfulness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, planned use, care impact), and Hassle (2 items: personal hassle, flow disruption). KEY RESULTS: Pre-intervention, study PCPs used a mean of 0.7 behaviors/visit, with no significant between-arm difference (P = 0.23). Post-intervention, experimental arm PCPs used more of the behaviors than controls (mean 2.7 vs. 1.0 per visit; adjusted difference 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1–2.2; P < 0.001). Experimental arm PCPs had higher training Value scores than controls (mean difference 1.05, 95 % CI 0.68–1.42; P < 0.001), and similarly low Hassle scores. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians receiving brief SPI-delivered training increased their use of SEE IT and found the training to be of value. Whether patients visiting SEE IT-trained physicians experience improved health behaviors and outcomes warrants study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01618552 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3644-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users