Sources of Variation in Physician Adherence with Clinical Guidelines: Results from a Factorial Experiment

BACKGROUND: Health services research has documented the magnitude of health care variations. Few studies focus on provider level sources of variation in clinical decision making-for example, which primary care providers are likely to follow clinical guidelines, with which types of patient. OBJECTIVES: To estimate: (1) the extent of primary care provider adherence to practice guidelines and the unconfounded influence of (2) patient attributes and (3) physician characteristics on adherence with clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: In a factorial experiment, primary care providers were shown clinically authentic video vignettes with actors portrayed different “patients” with identical signs of coronary heart disease (CHD). Different types of providers were asked how they would manage the different “patients” with identical CHD symptoms. Measures were taken to protect external validity. RESULTS: Adherence to some guidelines is high (over 50% of physicians would follow a third of the recommended actions), yet there is low adherence to many of them (less than 20% would follow another third). Female patients are less likely than males to receive 4 of 5 types of physical examination (p < .03); older patients are less likely to be advised to stop smoking (p < .03). Race and SES of patients had no effect on provider adherence to guidelines. A physicians’ level of experience (age) appears to be important with certain patients. CONCLUSIONS: Physician adherence with guidelines varies with different types of “patient” and with the length of clinical experience. With this evidence it is possible to appropriately target interventions to reduce health care variations by improving physician adherence with clinical guidelines

Multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in HIV-Infected Persons, Peru

During 1999 to 2000, we identified HIV-infected persons with new episodes of tuberculosis (TB) at 10 hospitals in Lima-Peru and a random sample of other Lima residents with TB. Multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB was documented in 35 (43%) of 81 HIV-positive patients and 38 (3.9%)of 965 patients who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status (p < 0.001). HIV-positive patients with MDR-TB were concentrated at three hospitals that treat the greatest numbers of HIV-infected persons with TB. Of patients with TB, those with HIV infection differed from those without known HIV infection in having more frequent prior exposure to clinical services and more frequent previous TB therapy or prophylaxis. However, MDR-TB in HIV-infected patients was not associated with previous TB therapy or prophylaxis. MDR-TB is an ongoing problem in HIV-infected persons receiving care in public hospitals in Lima and Callao; they represent sentinel cases for a potentially larger epidemic of nosocomial MDR-TB

Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: A qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA_1c≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA_1cexceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.</p

Engaging terminally ill patients in end of life talk: How experienced palliative medicine doctors navigate the dilemma of promoting discussions about dying

Objective: To examine how palliative medicine doctors engage patients in end-of-life (hereon, EoL) talk. To examine whether the practice of “eliciting and responding to cues”, which has been widely advocated in the EoL care literature, promotes EoL talk. Design: Conversation analysis of video- and audio-recorded consultations. Participants: Unselected terminally ill patients and their companions in consultation with experienced palliative medicine doctors. Setting: Outpatient clinic, day therapy clinic, and inpatient unit of a single English hospice. Results: Doctors most commonly promoted EoL talk through open elaboration solicitations; these created opportunities for patients to introduce Ð then later further articulate Ð EoL considerations in such a way that doctors did not overtly ask about EoL matters. Importantly, the wording of elaboration solicitations avoided assuming that patients had EoL concerns. If a patient responded to open elaboration solicitations without introducing EoL considerations, doctors sometimes pursued EoL talk by switching to a less participatory and more presumptive type of solicitation, which suggested the patient might have EoL concerns. These more overt solicitations were used only later in consultations, which indicates that doctors give precedence to patients volunteering EoL considerations, and offer them opportunities to take the lead in initiating EoL talk. There is evidence that doctors treat elaboration of patients’ talk as a resource for engaging them in EoL conversations. However, there are limitations associated with labelling that talk as “cues” as is common in EoL communication contexts. We examine these limitations and propose “possible EoL considerations” as a descriptively more accurate term. Conclusions: Through communicating Ð via open elaboration solicitations Ð in ways that create opportunities for patients to volunteer EoL considerations, doctors navigate a core dilemma in promoting EoL talk: giving patients opportunities to choose whether to engage in conversations about EoL whilst being sensitive to their communication needs, preferences and state of readiness for such dialogue

Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide

Background Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. Methods We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying Results We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. Conclusions The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers

Improving patient adherence to lifestyle advice (IMPALA): a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the implementation of a nurse-led intervention for cardiovascular risk management in primary care (protocol)

Background Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular diseases are managed and monitored in general practice. Recommendations for cardiovascular risk management, including lifestyle change, are clearly described in the Dutch national guideline. Although lifestyle interventions, such as advice on diet, physical exercise, smoking and alcohol, have moderate, but potentially relevant effects in these patients, adherence to lifestyle advice in general practice is not optimal. The IMPALA study intends to improve adherence to lifestyle advice by involving patients in decision making on cardiovascular prevention by nurse-led clinics. The aim of this paper is to describe the design and methods of a study to evaluate an intervention aimed at involving patients in cardiovascular risk management. Methods A cluster-randomised controlled trial in 20 general practices, 10 practices in the intervention arm and 10 in the control arm, starting on October 2005. A total of 720 patients without existing cardiovascular diseases but eligible for cardiovascular risk assessment will be recruited. In both arms, the general practitioners and nurses will be trained to apply the national guideline for cardiovascular risk management. Nurses in the intervention arm will receive an extended training in risk assessment, risk communication, the use of a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing. This communication technique will be used to support the shared decision-making process about risk reduction. The intervention comprises 2 consultations and 1 follow-up telephone call. The nurses in the control arm will give usual care after the risk estimation, according to the national guideline. Primary outcome measures are self-reported adherence to lifestyle advice and drug treatment. Secondary outcome measures are the patients' perception of risk and their motivation to change their behaviour. The measurements will take place at baseline and after 12 and 52 weeks. Clinical endpoints will not be measured, but the absolute 10-year risk of cardiovascular events will be estimated for each patient from medical records at baseline and after 1 year. Discussion The combined use of risk communication, a decision aid and motivational interviewing to enhance patient involvement in decision making is an innovative aspect of the intervention. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN5155672