Effectiveness of an electronic patient-centred self-management tool for gout sufferers: A cluster randomised controlled trail protocol

© © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. Introduction Gout is increasing despite effective therapies to lower serum urate concentrations to 0.36 mmol/L or less, which, if sustained, significantly reduces acute attacks of gout. Adherence to urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is poor, with rates of less than 50% 1 year after initiation of ULT. Attempts to increase adherence in gout patients have been disappointing. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of use of a personal, self-management, a'smartphone' application (app) to achieve target serum urate concentrations in people with gout. We hypothesise that personalised feedback of serum urate concentrations will improve adherence to ULT. Methods and analysisSetting and design Primary care. A prospective, cluster randomised (by general practitioner (GP) practices), controlled trial. Participants GP practices will be randomised to either intervention or control clusters with their patients allocated to the same cluster. Intervention The intervention group will have access to the Healthy.me app tailored for the self-management of gout. The control group patients will have access to the same app modified to remove all functions except the Gout Attack Diary. Primary and secondary outcomes The proportion of patients whose serum urate concentrations are less than or equal to 0.36 mmol/L after 6 months. Secondary outcomes will be proportions of patients achieving target urate concentrations at 12 months, ULT adherence rates, serum urate concentrations at 6 and 12 months, rates of attacks of gout, quality of life estimations and process and economic evaluations. The study is designed to detect a ≥30% improvement in the intervention group above the expected 50% achievement of target serum urate at 6 months in the control group: power 0.80, significance level 0.05, assumed a'dropout' rate 20%. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number ACTRN12616000455460

Promoting Patient Safety and Preventing Medical Error in Emergency Departments

An estimated 108,000 people die each year from potentially preventable iatrogenic injury. One in 50 hospitalized patients experiences a preventable adverse event. Up to 3% of these injuries and events take place in emergency departments. With long and detailed training, morbidity and mortality conferences, and an emphasis on practitioner responsibility, medicine has traditionally faced the challenges of medical error and patient safety through an approach focused almost exclusively on individual practitioners. Yet no matter how well trained and how careful health care providers are, individuals will make mistakes because they are human. In general medicine, the study of adverse drug events has led the way to new methods of error detection and error prevention. A combination of chart reviews, incident logs, observation, and peer solicitation has provided a quantitative tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions such as computer order entry and pharmacist order review. In emergency medicine (EM), error detection has focused on subjects of high liability: missed myocardial infarctions, missed appendicitis, and misreading of radiographs. Some system-level efforts in error prevention have focused on teamwork, on strengthening communication between pharmacists and emergency physicians, on automating drug dosing and distribution, and on rationalizing shifts. This article reviews the definitions, detection, and presentation of error in medicine and EM. Based on review of the current literature, recommendations are offered to enhance the likelihood of reduction of error in EM practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74930/1/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00466.x.pd

Effectiveness of a new model of primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for THE PARTNER STUDY

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: To increase the uptake of key clinical recommendations for non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and improve patient outcomes, we developed a new model of service delivery (PARTNER model) and an intervention to implement the model in the Australian primary care setting. We will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this model compared to usual general practice care. Methods: We will conduct a mixed-methods study, including a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial, with quantitative, qualitative and economic evaluations. We will recruit 44 general practices and 572 patients with knee OA in urban and regional practices in Victoria and New South Wales. The interventions will target both general practitioners (GPs) and their patients at the practice level. Practices will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited if they are aged =45 years and have experienced knee pain =4/10 on a numerical rating scale for more than three months. Outcomes are self-reported, patient-level validated measures with the primary outcomes being change in pain and function at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at 6 and 12 months. The implementation intervention will support and provide education to intervention group GPs to deliver effective management for patients with knee OA using tailored online training and electronic medical record support. Participants with knee OA will have an initial GP visit to confirm their diagnosis and receive management according to GP intervention or control group allocation. As part of the intervention group GP management, participants with knee OA will be referred to a centralised multidisciplinary service: the PARTNER Care Support Team (CST). The CST will be trained in behaviour change support and evidence-based knee OA management. They will work with patients to develop a collaborative action plan focussed on key self-management behaviours, and communicate with the patients' GPs. Patients receiving care by intervention group GPs will receive tailored OA educational materials, a leg muscle strengthening program, and access to a weight-loss program as appropriate and agreed. GPs in the control group will receive no additional training and their patients will receive usual care. Discussion: This project aims to address a major evidence-to-practice gap in primary care management of OA by evaluating a new service delivery model implemented with an intervention targeting GP practice behaviours to improve the health of people with knee OA. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617001595303, date of registration 1/12/2017

Patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information: A systematic scoping review

Background: Optimal management of osteoarthritis requires active patient participation. Understanding patients’ perceived health information needs is important in order to optimize health service delivery and health outcomes in osteoarthritis. We aimed to review the existing literature regarding patients’ perceived health information needs for OA. Methods: A systematic scoping review was performed of publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990–2016). Descriptive data regarding study design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients’ perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information were categorized. Results: 30 studies from 2876 were included: 16 qualitative, 11 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods studies. Three areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Need for clear communication: terms used were misunderstood or had unintended connotations. Patients wanted clear explanations. (2) Need for information from various sources: patients wanted accessible health professionals with specialist knowledge of arthritis. The Internet, whilst a source of information, was acknowledged to have dubious reliability. Print media, television, support groups, family and friends were utilised to fulfil diverse information needs. (3) Needs of information content: patients desired more information about diagnosis, prognosis, management and prevention. Conclusions: Patients desire more information regarding the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, its impact on daily life and its long-term prognosis. They want more information not only about pharmacological management options, but also non-pharmacological options to help them manage their symptoms. Also, patients wanted this information to be delivered in a clear manner from multiple sources of health information. To address these gaps, more effective communication strategies are required. The use of a variety of sources and modes of delivery may enable the provision of complementary material to provide information more successfully, resulting in better patient adherence to guidelines and improved health outcomes

The geo-constitution: Understanding the intersection of geography and political institutions

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this record.This paper draws on existing work in the discipline of human geography and cognate fields in order to develop the concept of the ‘geo-constitution’. This concept aims to: (1) highlight the importance of intersections between geography and political institutions in the constitution of government; (2) consider the path-dependent development of political institutions and their impact on statecraft and citizenship; (3) explore the implications of this for political reform. The paper provides an overview of current thinking in political geography and applies the concept of the geo-constitution to the example of devolution and localism in the United Kingdom

What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception

BACKGROUND: Physicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data. RESULTS: While one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study

Evaluation of a Theory-Informed Implementation Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in General Medical Practice: The IMPLEMENT Cluster Randomised Trial

Introduction: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. Methods: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. Results: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. Conclusions: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN01260600009853