What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Optimal treatment gives complete relief of symptoms of many disorders. But even if such treatment is available, some patients have persisting complaints. One disorder, from which the patients should achieve complete relief of symptoms with medical or surgical treatment, is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the fact that such treatment is cheap, safe and easily available; some patients have persistent complaints after contact with the health services. This study evaluates the causes of treatment failure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twelve patients with GERD and persistent complaints had a semi-structured interview which focused on the patients' evaluation of treatment failure. The interviews were taped, transcribed and evaluated by 18 physicians, (six general practitioners, six gastroenterologists and six gastrointestinal surgeons) who completed a questionnaire for each patient. The questionnaires were scored, and the relative responsibility for the failure was attributed to the patient, primary care, secondary care and interaction in the health services.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Failing interaction in the health services was the most important cause of treatment failure, followed by failure in primary care, secondary care and the patient himself; the relative responsibilities were 35%, 28%, 27% and 10% respectively. There was satisfactory agreement about the causes between doctors with different specialities, but significant inter-individual differences between the doctors. The causes of the failures differed between the patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Treatment failure is a complex problem. Inadequate interaction in the health services seems to be important. Improved communication between parts of the health services and with the patients are areas of improvement.</p

The impact of the introduction of intrapartum fetal ECG ST segment analysis. A population study

Introduction ST segment analysis (STAN) of the fetal electrocardiogram was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography for intrapartum fetal monitoring 30 years ago. We examined the impact of the introduction of STAN on changes in the occurrence of fetal and neonatal deaths, Apgar scores of <7 at 5 min, intrapartum cesarean sections, and instrumental vaginal deliveries while controlling for time- and hospital-specific trends and maternal risk factors. Material and Methods Data were retrieved from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway from 1985 to 2014. Individual data were linked to the Education Registry and the Central Person Registry. The study sample included 1 132 022 singleton births with a gestational age of 36 weeks or beyond. Information about the year of STAN introduction was collected from every birth unit in Norway using a questionnaire. Our data structure consisted of a hospital-year panel. We applied a linear probability model with hospital-fixed effects and with adjustment for potentially confounding factors. The prevalence of the outcomes before and after the introduction of STAN were compared within each birth unit. Results In total, 23 birth units, representing 76% of all births in Norway, had introduced the STAN technology. During the study period, stillbirths declined from 2.6 to 1.9 per 1000 births, neonatal deaths declined from 1.7 to 0.7 per 1000 live births, babies with Apgar score <7 at 5 min after birth increased from 7.4 to 9.5 per 1000 births, intrapartum cesarean sections increased from 6.4% to 9.5%, and instrumental vaginal deliveries increased from 7.8% to 10.9%. Our analyses found that the introduction of STAN was not associated with the decline in proportion of stillbirths (p =0.76) and neonatal deaths (p =0.76) or with the increase in intrapartum cesarean sections (p =0.92) and instrumental vaginal deliveries (p =0.78). However, it was associated with the increased occurrence of Apgar score <7 at 5 min (p =0.01). Conclusions There is no evidence that the introduction of STAN contributed to changes in the rates of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, intrapartum cesarean sections, or instrumental vaginal deliveries. There was an association between the introduction of STAN and a small increase in neonates with low Apgar scores

What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

Background: Optimal treatment gives complete relief of symptoms of many disorders. But even if such treatment is available, some patients have persisting complaints. One disorder, from which the patients should achieve complete relief of symptoms with medical or surgical treatment, is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the fact that such treatment is cheap, safe and easily available; some patients have persistent complaints after contact with the health services. This study evaluates the causes of treatment failure. Methods: Twelve patients with GERD and persistent complaints had a semi-structured interview which focused on the patients’ evaluation of treatment failure. The interviews were taped, transcribed and evaluated by 18 physicians, (six general practitioners, six gastroenterologists and six gastrointestinal surgeons) who completed a questionnaire for each patient. The questionnaires were scored, and the relative responsibility for the failure was attributed to the patient, primary care, secondary care and interaction in the health services. Results: Failing interaction in the health services was the most important cause of treatment failure, followed by failure in primary care, secondary care and the patient himself; the relative responsibilities were 35%, 28%, 27% and 10% respectively. There was satisfactory agreement about the causes between doctors with different specialities, but significant inter-individual differences between the doctors. The causes of the failures differed between the patients. Conclusions: Treatment failure is a complex problem. Inadequate interaction in the health services seems to be important. Improved communication between parts of the health services and with the patients are areas of improvement