The ACA training programme to improve communication between general practitioners and their palliative care patients: development and applicability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>We describe the development of a new training programme on GP-patient communication in palliative care, and the applicability to GPs and GP Trainees. This ‘ACA training programme’ focuses on <b> <it>A</it> </b><it>vailability</it> of the GP for the patient, <b> <it>C</it> </b><it>urrent issues</it> that should be raised by the GP, and <b> <it>A</it> </b><it>nticipating</it> various scenarios. Evaluation results indicate the ACA training programme to be applicable to GPs and GP Trainees. The ACA checklist was appreciated by GPs as useful both in practice and as a learning tool, whereas GP Trainees mainly appreciated the list for use in practice.</p

Sick-listed employees with severe medically unexplained physical symptoms: burden or routine for the occupational health physician? A cross sectional study

Background: The two primary objectives of this study were to the assess consultation load of occupational health physicians (OHPs), and their difficulties and needs with regard to their sickness certification tasks in sick-listed employees with severe medical unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Third objective was to determine which disease-, patient-, doctor- and practice-related factors are associated with the difficulties and needs of the OHPs. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 43 participating OHPs from 5 group practices assessed 489 sick-listed employees with and without severe MUPS. The OHPs filled in a questionnaire about difficulties concerning sickness certification tasks, consultation time, their needs with regard to consultation with or referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist, and communication with GPs. The OHPs also completed a questionnaire about their personal characteristics. Results: OHPs only experienced task difficulties in employees with severe MUPS in relation to their communication with the treating physician. This only occured in cases in which the OHP attributed the physical symptoms to somatoform causes. If they attributed the physical symptoms to mental causes, the OHPs reported a need to consultate a psychiatrist about the diagnosis and treatment. Conclusions: OHPs experience few difficulties with their sickness certification tasks and consultation load concerning employees with severe MUPS. However, they encounter problems if the diagnostic uncertainties of the treating physician interfere with the return to work process. OHPs have a need for psychiatric expertise whenever they are uncertain about the psychiatric causes of a delayed return to work process. We recommend further training programs for OHPs. They should also have more opportunity for consultation and referral to a psychiatrist, and their communication with treating physicians should be improved

The Contribution of High Levels of Somatic Symptom Severity to Sickness Absence Duration, Disability and Discharge

Introduction: The primary objectives were to compare the duration of sickness absence in employees with high levels of somatic symptom severity (HLSSS) with employees with lower levels of somatic symptom severity, and to establish the long-term outcomes concerning return to work (RTW), disability and discharge. Secondary objective was to evaluate determinants of the duration of sickness absence in employees with HLSSS. Methods: 489 sick-listed employees registered with five Occupational Health Physician (OHP) group practices were included in this study. We measured their baseline scores for somatic symptoms severity, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, health anxiety, distress and functional impairment. The OHPs filled in a questionnaire on their diagnosis. A prospective 2-year follow-up was carried out to assess the long-term outcomes concerning sickness absence, and retrospective information was gathered with regard to sickness absence during the 12 months before the employees were sick-listed. Results: The median duration of sickness absence was 78 days longer for employees with HLSSS. They more often remained disabled and were discharged more often, especially due to problems in the relationship between the employer and the employee. HLSSS, health anxiety and older age contributed to a longer duration of sickness absence of employees. Conclusion: High levels of somatic symptom severity are a determinant of prolonged sickness absence, enduring disabilities and health-related job loss. Occupational health physicians should identify employees who are at risk and adhere to guidelines for medically unexplained somatic symptoms

The association between pain and prevalent and incident motoric cognitive risk syndrome in older adults

Background: The Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome (MCR) is a pre-dementia syndrome characterized by subjective cognitive complaints and slow gait in the absence of dementia and mobility disability. Worse cognitive and motoric function is associated with chronic pain in older adults. Our aim was to study the association between pain and prevalent and incident MCR in adults aged 65 years and older. Methods: We analyzed the cross-sectional association between severity of pain and prevalent MCR in 3244 older adults participating in the Health and Retirement Study (2008 wave) using logistic regression analysis adjusting for demographic, peripheral, central or biological risk factors. Additionally, we analyzed the longitudinal association between severity of pain and incident MCR in 362 participants in the Central Control of Mobility in Aging Study, using Cox regression analysis. Results: The 155 Health and Retirement Study participants with severe pain had an increased risk of prevalent MCR (n = 249), compared to 2245 individuals without pain (adjusted for demographics OR: 2.78, 95 % CI:1.74–4.45). Over a mean follow-up of 3.01 years (SD 1.38), 29 individuals in the Central Control of Mobility in Aging Study developed incident MCR. Older adults with severe pain had over a five times increased risk of developing incident MCR, compared to those without pain even after adjusting for demographic variables (HR: 5.44, 95 % CI: 1.81–16.40). Conclusion: Older adults with severe pain have a higher prevalence and incidence of MCR. These findings should be further explored to establish if pain is a potentially modifiable risk factor to prevent cognitive decline

Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study

INTRODUCTION: Central sensitization (CS) may explain the persistence of symptoms in patients with chronic pain and persistent physical symptoms (PPS). There is a need for assessing CS in the consultation room. In a recently published systematic review, we made an inventory of tests for CS. In this study we aimed to assess which tests might have added value, might be feasible and thus be suitable for use in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study consisting of two e-mail rounds to reach consensus among experts in chronic pain and PPS. We invited 40 national and international experts on chronic pain and PPS, 27 agreed to participate. We selected 12 tests from our systematic review and additional searches; panellists added three more tests in the first round. We asked the panellists, both clinicians and researchers, to rate these 15 tests on technical feasibility for use in general practice, added value and to provide an overall judgement for suitability in general practice. RESULTS: In two rounds the panellists reached consensus on 14 of the 15 tests: three were included, eleven excluded. Included were the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments. No consensus was reached on the Sensory Hypersensitivity Scale. CONCLUSION: In a Delphi study among an international panel of experts, three tests for measuring CS were considered to be suitable for use in general practice: the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments

Experiences of general practitioners explaining central sensitisation to patients with persistent physical symptoms: a focus group study

Objective Patients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) require an explanation that is acceptable and comprehensible to them. Central sensitisation (CS) is an explanatory model for PPS and chronic pain that has been broadly applied in the context of pain medicine, but, until recently, not by general practitioners (GPs). We explored how GPs used the CS model in their consultations with patients with PPS.Design and setting A qualitative focus group study among GPs in the Netherlands.Methods We instructed 33 GPs on how to explain CS to patients with PPS. After 0.5–1.5 years of using the CS model, 26 GPs participated in focus groups and interviews to report and discuss their experiences with CS as an explanatory model. Audio recordings were transcribed and two researchers independently analysed the data. The text was coded, codes were organised into themes and discussed until consensus was reached.Results We identified eleven themes and grouped these into four categories.The GPs regarded the CS model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient. On the other hand, they found explaining the CS model difficult and time-consuming. They tailored the CS model to their patients’ needs and used multiple consultations to explain the model. The GPs reported that the use of the CS model seemed to improve the understanding and acceptance of the symptoms by the patients and seemed to reduce their need for more diagnostic tests. Furthermore, patients seemed to become more motivated to accept appropriate therapy.Conclusion GPs reported that they were able to provide explanations with the CS model to their patients with PPS. They regarded the model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient, but explaining it difficult and time-consuming

The Effect of Pain on Major Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults

Older adults frequently report pain; cross-sectional studies have shown that pain is associated with worse cognitive function. However, longitudinal studies are lacking. We prospectively studied 441 participants without dementia, including 285 with pain, aged 65 years and older, enrolled in the Central Control of Mobility in Aging study, a prospective cohort study. We analyzed the longitudinal association between pain (measured with the Medical Outcomes Study pain severity scale) and major cognitive impairment (measured with the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status and the Trail Making Test Delta) using Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and education. Over a mean follow-up of 2.75 years (standard deviation = 1.94), there was no difference in the risk of developing cognitive impairment between participants with pain and participants without pain. However, among those with pain, risk for developing major memory impairment was higher among those with high levels of pain than those with low levels of pain (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.47, 95% confidence interval = 1.42–8.46). The association with pain and incident impairments in attention or executive function was not significant. We did not find that pain is associated with incident cognitive impairment in general, but among older adults with pain, a high level of pain is associated with increased risk of developing incident memory impairment. Perspective: Our study results suggest that high levels of pain may contribute to incident memory impairment. Further research is needed to determine whether a high level of chronic pain is a modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment in older adults

Patterns of direct observation and their impact during residency:general practice supervisors' views

Context: Direct observation (DO) of residents’ performance, despite the importance that is ascribed to it, does not readily fit in with the practice of postgraduate medical education (PGME); it is infrequent and the quality of observation may be poor in spite of ongoing efforts towards improvement. In recent literature, DO is mostly portrayed as a means to gather information on the performance of residents for purposes of feedback and assessment. The role of DO in PGME is likely to be more complex and poorly understood in the era of outcome-based education. By exploring the possible complexity of DO in workplace learning, our research aims to contribute to a better use of DO in the practice of PGME. Methods: Constructivist grounded theory informed our data collection and analysis. Data collection involved focus group sessions with supervisors in Dutch general practice who were invited to discuss the manifestations, meanings and effects of DO of technical skills. Theoretical sufficiency was achieved after four focus groups, with a total of 28 participants being included. Results: We found four patterns of DO of technical skills: initial planned DO sessions; resident-initiated ad hoc DO; supervisor-initiated ad hoc DO, and continued planned DO sessions. Different patterns of DO related to varying meanings, such as checking or trusting, and effects, such as learning a new skill or experiencing emotional discomfort, all of them concerning the training relationship, patient safety or residents’ learning. Conclusions: Direct observation, to supervisors, means much more than gathering information for purposes of feedback and assessment. Planned DO sessions are an important routine during the initiation phase of a training relationship. Continued planned bidirectional DO sessions, although infrequently practised, potentially combine most benefits with least side-effects of DO. Ad hoc DO, although much relied upon, is often hampered by internal tensions in supervisors, residents or both

A phenomenology of direct observation in residency: Is Miller's ‘does’ level observable?

Introduction: Guidelines on direct observation (DO) present DO as an assessment of Miller's ‘does’ level, that is, the learner's ability to function independently in clinical situations. The literature, however, indicates that residents may behave ‘inauthentically’ when observed. To minimise this ‘observer effect’, learners are encouraged to ‘do what they would normally do’ so that they can receive feedback on their actual work behaviour. Recent phenomenological research on patients' experiences with DO challenges this approach; patients needed—and caused—some participation of the observing supervisor. Although guidelines advise supervisors to minimise their presence, we are poorly informed on how some deliberate supervisor participation affects residents' experience in DO situations. Therefore, we investigated what residents essentially experienced in DO situations. Methods: We performed an interpretive phenomenological interview study, including six general practice (GP) residents. We collected and analysed our data, using the four phenomenological lenses of lived body, lived space, lived time and lived relationship. We grouped our open codes by interpreting what they revealed about common structures of residents' pre-reflective experiences. Results: Residents experienced the observing supervisor not just as an observer or assessor. They also experienced them as both a senior colleague and as the patient's familiar GP, which led to many additional interactions. When residents tried to act as if the supervisor was not there, they could feel insecure and handicapped because the supervisor was there, changing the situation. Discussion: Our results indicate that the ‘observer effect’ is much more material than was previously understood. Consequently, observing residents' ‘authentic’ behaviour at Miller's ‘does’ level, as if the supervisor was not there, seems impossible and a misleading concept: misleading, because it may frustrate residents and cause supervisors to neglect patients' and residents' needs in DO situations. We suggest that one-way DO is better replaced by bi-directional DO in working-and-learning-together sessions