The Surgical Nosology In Primary-care Settings (SNIPS): a simple bridging classification for the interface between primary and specialist care

BACKGROUND: The interface between primary care and specialist medical services is an important domain for health services research and policy. Of particular concern is optimising specialist services and the organisation of the specialist workforce to meet the needs and demands for specialist care, particularly those generated by referral from primary care. However, differences in the disease classification and reporting of the work of primary and specialist surgical sectors hamper such research. This paper describes the development of a bridging classification for use in the study of potential surgical problems in primary care settings, and for classifying referrals to surgical specialties. METHODS: A three stage process was undertaken, which involved: (1) defining the categories of surgical disorders from a specialist perspective that were relevant to the specialist-primary care interface; (2) classifying the 'terms' in the International Classification of Primary Care Version 2-Plus (ICPC-2 Plus) to the surgical categories; and (3) using referral data from 303,000 patient encounters in the BEACH study of general practice activity in Australia to define a core set of surgical conditions. Inclusion of terms was based on the probability of specialist referral of patients with such problems, and specialists' perception that they constitute part of normal surgical practice. RESULTS: A four-level hierarchy was developed, containing 8, 27 and 79 categories in the first, second and third levels, respectively. These categories classified 2050 ICPC-2 Plus terms that constituted the fourth level, and which covered the spectrum of problems that were managed in primary care and referred to surgical specialists. CONCLUSION: Our method of classifying terms from a primary care classification system to categories delineated by specialists should be applicable to research addressing the interface between primary and specialist care. By describing the process and putting the bridging classification system in the public domain, we invite comment and application in other settings where similar problems might be faced

Chronic non-specific abdominal complaints in general practice: a prospective study on management, patient health status and course of complaints

BACKGROUND: While in general practice chronic non-specific abdominal complaints are common, there is insufficient data on the clinical course and the management of these complaints. Aim of this study was to present a primary care based profile of these chronic complaints including health care involvement, health status and clinical course. METHODS: Thirty general practitioners (GPs) and patients from their practices participated in a prospective follow-up study. All patients and GPs were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline and at 6, 12 and 18 months of follow-up. The GPs provided information on diagnostic and therapeutic management and on referral concerning 619 patients with chronic non-specific abdominal complaints, while 291 patients provided information about health status and clinical course of the complaints. RESULTS: When asked after 18 months of follow-up, 51,7% of the patients reported an equal or worsened severity of complaints. General health perception was impaired and patients had high scores on SCL-anxiety and SCL-depression scales. Diagnostic tests other than physical examination and laboratory tests were not frequently used. Medication was the most frequent type of treatment. The persistence of chronic non-specific abdominal complaints was quite stable. CONCLUSION: Once non-specific chronic abdominal complaints have become labelled as chronic by the attending physician, little improvement can be expected. The impact on patients' physiological and psychological well-being is large. GPs use a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Research into the evidence base of currently applied management strategies is recommended

Norwegian GPs' participation in multidisciplinary meetings: A register-based study from 2007

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increasing number of patients with chronic disorders and a more complex health service demand greater interdisciplinary collaboration in Primary Health Care. The aim of this study was therefore to identify factors related to general practitioners (GPs), their list populations and practice municipalities associated with a high rate of GP participation in multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A national cross-sectional register-based study of Norwegian general practice was conducted, including data on all GPs in the Regular GP Scheme in 2007 (N = 3179). GPs were grouped into quartiles based on the annual number of MDMs per patient on their list, and the groups were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse associations between high rates of participation and characteristics of the GP, their list population and practice municipality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On average, GPs attended 30 MDMs per year. The majority of the meetings concerned patients in the age groups 20-59 years. Psychological disorders were the motivation for 53% of the meetings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, the following characteristics predicted a high rate of MDM attendance: younger age of the GP, with an OR of 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-2.1) for GPs < 45 years, a short patient list, with an OR of 4.9 (3.2-7.5) for list sizes below 800 compared to lists ≥ 1600, higher proportion of psychological diagnosis in consultations (OR3.4 (2.6-4.4)) and a high MDM proportion with elderly patients (OR 4.1 (3.3-5.4)). Practising in municipalities with less than 10,000 inhabitants (OR 3.7 (2.8-4.9)) and a high proportion of disability pensioners (OR 1.6 (1.2-2.2)) or patients receiving social assistance (OR 2.2 (1.7-2.8)) also predicted high rates of meetings.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Psychological problems including substance addiction gave grounds for the majority of MDMs. GPs with a high proportion of consultations with such problems also participated more frequently in MDMs. List size was negatively associated with the rate of MDMs, while a more disadvantaged list population was positively associated. Working in smaller organisational units seemed to facilitate cooperation between different professionals. There may be a generation shift towards more frequent participation in interdisciplinary work among younger GPs.</p