Management of patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a descriptive study

Background: In 2013 the Dutch guideline for management of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) was published. The aim of this study is to assess medical care for patients with persistent MUS as recorded in their electronic medical records, to investigate if this is in line with the national guideline for persistent MUS and whether there are changes in care over time. Methods: We conducted an observational study of adult primary care patients with MUS. Routinely recorded health care data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients participating in an ongoing randomised controlled trial in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. Data on general practitioners’ (GPs’) management strategies during MUS consultations were collected in a 5-year period for each patient prior. Management strategies were categorised according to the options offered in the Dutch guideline. Changes in management over time were analysed. Results: Data were collected from 1035 MUS consultations (77 patients). Beside history-taking, the most frequently used diagnostic strategies were physical examination (24.5%) and additional investigations by the GP (11.1%). Frequently used therapeutic strategies were prescribing medication (24.6%) and providing explanations (11.2%). As MUS symptoms persisted, GPs adjusted medication, discussed progress and scheduled follow-up appointments more frequently. The least frequently used strategies were exploration of all complaint dimensions (i.e. somatic, cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social) (3.5%) and referral to a psychologist (0.5%) or psychiatrist (0.1%). Conclusions: Management of Dutch GPs is partly in line with the Dutch guideline. Medication was possibly prescribed more frequently than recommended, whereas exploration of all complaint dimensions, shared problem definition and referral to mental health care were used less

Variation in GP decisions on antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old and frail individuals across 29 countries

BACKGROUND: In oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision. METHODS: Using a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP. RESULTS: The 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs' decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48-0.59; ORs per country 0.11-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Across countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making

Nutritional therapies for mental disorders

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 out of the 10 leading causes of disability in the US and other developed countries are mental disorders. Major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) are among the most common mental disorders that currently plague numerous countries and have varying incidence rates from 26 percent in America to 4 percent in China. Though some of this difference may be attributable to the manner in which individual healthcare providers diagnose mental disorders, this noticeable distribution can be also explained by studies which show that a lack of certain dietary nutrients contribute to the development of mental disorders. Notably, essential vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids are often deficient in the general population in America and other developed countries; and are exceptionally deficient in patients suffering from mental disorders. Studies have shown that daily supplements of vital nutrients often effectively reduce patients' symptoms. Supplements that contain amino acids also reduce symptoms, because they are converted to neurotransmitters that alleviate depression and other mental disorders. Based on emerging scientific evidence, this form of nutritional supplement treatment may be appropriate for controlling major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), addiction, and autism. The aim of this manuscript is to emphasize which dietary supplements can aid the treatment of the four most common mental disorders currently affecting America and other developed countries: major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 3: eHealth education in primary care

BACKGROUND: Education is essential to the integration of eHealth into primary care, but eHealth is not yet embedded in medical education. OBJECTIVES: In this opinion article, we aim to support organisers of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and teachers delivering medical vocational training by providing recommendations for eHealth education. First, we describe what is required to help primary care professionals and trainees learn about eHealth. Second, we elaborate on how eHealth education might be provided. DISCUSSION: We consider four essential topics. First, an understanding of existing evidence-based eHealth applications and conditions for successful development and implementation. Second, required digital competencies of providers and patients. Third, how eHealth changes patient-provider and provider-provider relationships and finally, understanding the handling of digital data. Educational activities to address these topics include eLearning, blended learning, courses, simulation exercises, real-life practice, supervision and reflection, role modelling and community of practice learning. More specifically, a CanMEDS framework aimed at defining curriculum learning goals can support eHealth education by describing roles and required competencies. Alternatively, Kern's conceptual model can be used to design eHealth training programmes that match the educational needs of the stakeholders using eHealth. CONCLUSION: Vocational and CPD training in General Practice needs to build on eHealth capabilities now. We strongly advise the incorporation of eHealth education into vocational training and CPD activities, rather than providing it as a separate single module. How learning goals and activities take shape and how competencies are evaluated clearly requires further practice, evaluation and study