Does a joint development and dissemination of multidisciplinary guidelines improve prescribing behaviour: a pre/post study with concurrent control group and a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to keep control over prescribing behaviour in general practices. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a dissemination strategy of multidisciplinary guidelines on the volume of drug prescribing. METHODS: The study included two designs, a quasi-experimental pre/post study with concurrent control group and a random sample of GPs within the intervention group. The intervention area with 53 GPs was compared with a control group of 54 randomly selected GPs in the south and centre of the Netherlands. Additionally, a randomisation was executed in the intervention group to create two arms with 27 GPs who were more intensively involved in the development of the guideline and 26 GPs in the control group. A multidisciplinary committee developed prescription guidelines. Subsequently these guidelines were disseminated to all GPs in the intervention region. Additional effects were studied in the subgroup trial in which GPs were invited to be more intensively involved in the guideline development procedure. The guidelines contained 14 recommendations on antibiotics, asthma/COPD drugs and cholesterol drugs The main outcome measures were prescription data of a three-year period (one year before and 2 years after guideline dissemination) and proportion of change according to recommendations. RESULTS: Significant short-term improvements were seen for one recommendation: mupirocin. Long-term changes were found for cholesterol drug prescriptions. No additional changes were seen for the randomised controlled study in the subgroup. GPs did not take up the invitation for involvement. CONCLUSION: Disseminating multidisciplinary guidelines that were developed within a region, has no clear effect on prescribing behaviour even though GPs and specialists were involved more intensively in their development. Apparently, more effort is needed to bring about change

Does an in-house internist at a GP practice result in reduced referrals to hospital-based specialist care?

Consistent evidence on the effects of specialist services in the primary care setting is lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of an in-house internist at a GP practice on the number of referrals to specialist care in the hospital setting. Additionally, the involved GPs and internist were asked to share their experiences with the intervention

Evaluation of an automated test ordering and feedback system for general practitioners in daily practice

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of an automated test ordering and feedback system (named GRIF) in daily practice. The system produces recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) to improve the application of accepted practice guidelines for test ordering. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial with balanced block design was carried out in general practices in two regions of the Netherlands from August 2000 to July 2001. We implemented the GRIF system on the workstations at the offices of the participating GPs. The GPs (n=11) were asked to use GRIF during patient consultation instead of filling in the paper request form. The system displayed critical comments about their non-adherence to the guidelines as apparent from the request forms. RESULTS: The median time of producing the comments plus the response time of the GP was 13s. Of the 2780 presented recommendations, 4.3% were accepted. Advice of the GRIF system that presents a concrete test to request in a particular situation is adhered to most frequently. Finally, there seems to be a decrease of accepted comments over the trial period. CONCLUSION: Computerised recommendations should contain, if possible, suggestions for alternative tests to improve the application of these recommendations. Furthermore, creative solutions must be developed to avoid that GPs get used to the recommendations of critiquing systems and to stimulate a better adherence to these recommendation

Reasons for ordering laboratory tests and relationship with frequency of abnormal results

Objective. Laboratory tests are ordered on a daily basis, even though disease probability is often very low. Abnormal results, especially mildly abnormal results, can be difficult to interpret in these circumstances. Further insights into the occurrence of abnormalities can help improve rational test ordering and test interpretation. The objective was therefore to examine the frequency of mildly and markedly abnormal results and their relationship with physicians' reasons for ordering tests. Design. Prospective study. Participants. A total of 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands collected data on 1775 patients. Main outcome measures. The physicians recorded the reason for ordering the tests, the most probable diagnosis and the pretest probability. The laboratories' reference values and specified "action limits" were used to assess the number of abnormal results and markedly abnormal results, respectively. Results. Laboratory results were received for 1621 patients and 15,603 tests were reported (mean 9.6). The proportion of abnormal test results increased with increasing pretest probability (from 13.9% to 34.7%) and was 13.4% for tests ordered to reassure the patient and 13.3% for psychosocial diagnoses. The proportion of patients with at least one abnormal test result was high: 53.1% for tests ordered to reassure and 57.7% in patients with low pretest probability. Corresponding values for a marked abnormality were 11.1% and 12.4%, respectively. Conclusion. Abnormal laboratory test results were frequent, even when pretest probability was low. Physicians should therefore carefully consider when tests are necessary. Future research could explore physicians' interpretation of test results and its impact on diagnosis and management

Effectiveness of involving a nurse specialist for patients with urinary incontinence in primary care: results of a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) primary care management is substandard, offering care rather than cure despite the existence of guidelines that help to improve cure. Involving nurse specialists on incontinence in general practice could be a way to improve care for UI patients. Aims: We studied whether involving nurse specialists on UI in general practice reduced severity and impact of UI. Methods: Between 2005 and 2008 a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial was performed comparing a 1-year intervention by trained nurse specialists with care-as-usual after initial diagnosis and assessment by general practitioners in adult patients with stress, urgency or mixed UI in four Dutch regions (Maastricht, Nijmegen, Helmond, The Hague). Simple randomisation was computer-generated with allocation concealment. Analysis was performed by intention-to-treat principles. Main outcome measure was the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) severity sum score. Results: A total of 186 patients followed the intervention and 198 received care-as-usual. Patients in both study groups improved significantly in UI severity and impact on health-related quality of life. After correction for effect modifiers [type of UI, body mass index (BMI)], we found significant differences between groups in favour of the intervention group at 3 months (p = 0.04); no differences were found in the 1-year linear trend (p = 0.15). Patients in the intervention group without baseline anxiety/depression improved significantly better compared with care-as-usual after 1 year (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Involving nurse specialists in care for UI patients supplementary to general practitioners can improve severity and impact of UI, after correction for effect modifiers. This is also the case in specific situations such as anxiety/depression