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

Effect of requiring a general practitioner at scenes of serious injury: A systematic review

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Straumann, G.S.H., Austvoll-Dahlgren, A.A., Holte, H. & Wisborg, T.W. (2018). Effect of requiring a general practitioner at scenes of serious injury: A systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 62(9), 1194-1199, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13174. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.Background - In Norway, each municipality is responsible for providing first line emergency healthcare, and it is mandatory to have a primary care physician/general practitioner on call continuously. This mandate ensures that a physician can assist patients and ambulance personnel at the site of severe injuries or illnesses. The compulsory presence of the general practitioner at the scene could affect different parts of patient treatment, and it might save resources by obviating resources from secondary healthcare, like pre‐hospital anaesthesiologists and other specialized resources. This systematic review aimed to examine how survival, time spent at the scene, the choice of transport destination, assessment of urgency, the number of admissions, and the number of cancellations of specialized pre‐hospital resources were affected by the presence of a general practitioner at the scene of a suspected severe injury. Methods - We searched for published and planned systematic reviews and primary studies in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, OpenGrey, GreyLit and trial registries. The search was completed in December 2017. Two individuals independently screened the references and assessed the eligibility of all potentially relevant studies. Results - The search for systematic reviews and primary studies identified 5981 articles. However, no studies met the pre‐defined inclusion criteria. Conclusion - No studies met our inclusion criteria; consequently, it remains uncertain how the presence of a general practitioner at the injury scene might affect the selected outcomes

Factors influencing the development of evidence-based practice among nurses: a self-report survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health authorities in several countries have decided that the health care services should be evidence-based. Recent research indicates that evidence-based practice may be more successfully implemented if the interventions overcome identified barriers.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The present study aimed to examine factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based practice among nurses in a large Norwegian university hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional data was collected from 407 nurses during the period November 8 to December 3, 2010, using the Norwegian version of Developing Evidence-based Practice questionnaire (DEBP). The DEBP included data on various sources of information used for support in practice, on potential barriers for evidence-based practice, and on self-reported skills on managing research-based evidence. The DEBP was translated into Norwegian in accordance with standardized guidelines for translation and cultural adaptation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nurses largely used experienced-based knowledge collected from their own observations, colleagues and other collaborators for support in practice. Evidence from research was seldom used. The greatest barriers were lack of time and lack of skills to find and manage research evidence. The nurse’s age, the number of years of nursing practice, and the number of years since obtaining the last health professional degree influenced the use of sources of knowledge and self-reported barriers. Self-reported skills in finding, reviewing and using different sources of evidence were positively associated with the use of research evidence and inversely related to barriers in use of research evidence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Skills in evidence-based practice seem to reduce barriers to using research evidence and to increase use of research evidence in clinical practice.</p

Comparing hospital mortality – how to count does matter for patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mortality is a widely used, but often criticised, quality indicator for hospitals. In many countries, mortality is calculated from in-hospital deaths, due to limited access to follow-up data on patients transferred between hospitals and on discharged patients. The objectives were to: i) summarize time, place and cause of death for first time acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture, ii) compare case-mix adjusted 30-day mortality measures based on in-hospital deaths and in-and-out-of hospital deaths, with and without patients transferred to other hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Norwegian hospital data within a 5-year period were merged with information from official registers. Mortality based on in-and-out-of-hospital deaths, weighted according to length of stay at each hospital for transferred patients (W30D), was compared to a) mortality based on in-and-out-of-hospital deaths excluding patients treated at two or more hospitals (S30D), and b) mortality based on in-hospital deaths (IH30D). Adjusted mortalities were estimated by logistic regression which, in addition to hospital, included age, sex and stage of disease. The hospitals were assigned outlier status according to the Z-values for hospitals in the models; low mortality: Z-values below the 5-percentile, high mortality: Z-values above the 95-percentile, medium mortality: remaining hospitals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The data included 48 048 AMI patients, 47 854 stroke patients and 40 142 hip fracture patients from 55, 59 and 58 hospitals, respectively. The overall relative frequencies of deaths within 30 days were 19.1% (AMI), 17.6% (stroke) and 7.8% (hip fracture). The cause of death diagnoses included the referral diagnosis for 73.8-89.6% of the deaths within 30 days. When comparing S30D versus W30D outlier status changed for 14.6% (AMI), 15.3% (stroke) and 36.2% (hip fracture) of the hospitals. For IH30D compared to W30D outlier status changed for 18.2% (AMI), 25.4% (stroke) and 27.6% (hip fracture) of the hospitals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Mortality measures based on in-hospital deaths alone, or measures excluding admissions for transferred patients, can be misleading as indicators of hospital performance. We propose to attribute the outcome to all hospitals by fraction of time spent in each hospital for patients transferred between hospitals to reduce bias due to double counting or exclusion of hospital stays.</p