Questionnaire of chronic illness care in primary care-psychometric properties and test-retest reliability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based approach to improving the structure of care for chronically ill patients with multimorbidity. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC), an instrument commonly used in international research, includes all aspects of the CCM, but cannot be easily extended to the German context. A new instrument called the "Questionnaire of Chronic Illness Care in Primary Care" (QCPC) was developed for use in Germany for this reason. Here, we present the results of the psychometric properties and test-retest reliability of QCPC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 109 family doctors from different German states participated in the validation study. Participating physicians completed the QCPC, which includes items concerning the CCM and practice structure, at baseline (T0) and 3 weeks later (T1). Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's r, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The QCPC contains five elements of the CCM (decision support, delivery system design, self-management support, clinical information systems, and community linkages). All subscales demonstrated moderate internal consistency and moderate test-retest reliability over a three-week interval.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The QCPC is an appropriate instrument to assess the structure of chronic illness care. Unlike the ACIC, the QCPC can be used by health care providers without CCM training. The QCPC can detect the actual state of care as well as areas for improvement of care according to the CCM.</p

Osteoarthritis and functional disability: results of a cross sectional study among primary care patients in Germany

Contains fulltext : 52359.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine factors associated with functional disability in patients with OA. METHODS: 1250 questionnaires were distributed to OA outpatients from 75 general practices; 1021 (81.6%) were returned. Questionnaires included sociodemographic data, the short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS2-SF), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess concomitant depression. A hierarchical stepwise multiple regression analysis with the AIMS2-SF dimension "lower body" as dependent was performed. RESULTS: Main factors associated with functional disability were depression symptoms, as reflected in a high score of the PHQ-9 (beta = 0.446; p < 0.0009), pain as reflected in the AIMS2-SF symptom scale (beta = 0.412; p = 0.001), and few social contacts (beta = 0.201; p < 0.042). A high body mass index was associated with lower functional ability (beta = 0.332; p = 0.005) whereas a higher educational level (beta = -0.279; p = 0.029) predicted less impairment. Increased age was a weak predictor (beta = 0.178; p = 0.001) of disability. With a p of 0.062 the radiological severity according to the grading of Kellgren and Lawrence slightly surpassed the required significance level for remaining in the final regression model. CONCLUSION: The results emphasize that psychological as well as physical factors need to be addressed similarly to improve functional ability of patients suffering from OA. More research with multifaceted and tailored interventions is needed to determine how these factors can be targeted appropriately

What differentiates primary care physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics for treating mild to moderate hypertension from those who do not? A comparative qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thiazide diuretics are cost-effective for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, but physicians often opt for more expensive treatment options such as angiotensin II receptor blockers or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. With escalating health care costs, there is a need to elucidate the factors influencing physicians' treatment choices for this highly prevalent chronic condition. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of physicians' decision-making process regarding hypertension treatment choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A comparative qualitative study was conducted in 2009 in the Canadian province of Quebec. Overall, 29 primary care physicians--who are also participating in an electronic health record research program--participated in a semi-structured interview about their prescribing decisions. Physicians were categorized into two groups based on their patterns of prescribing antihypertensive drugs: physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics, and physicians who predominantly prescribe drug classes other than diuretics. Cases of hypertension that were newly started on antihypertensive therapy were purposely selected from each physician's electronic health record database. Chart stimulated recall interview, a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinical encounters, was used to elucidate reasons for treatment choices. Interview transcripts were synthesized using content analysis techniques, and factors influencing physicians' decision making were inductively generated from the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified three themes that differentiated physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics from those who predominantly prescribe other drug classes for the initial treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a) perceptions about the efficacy of diuretics, b) preferred approach to hypertension management and, c) perceptions about hypertension guidelines. Specifically, physicians had differences in beliefs about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of diuretics, the most effective approach for managing mild to moderate hypertension, and in aggressiveness to achieve treatment targets. Marketing strategies employed by the pharmaceutical industry and practice experience appear to contribute to these differences in management approach.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Physicians preferring more expensive treatment options appear to have several misperceptions about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of diuretics. Efforts to increase physicians' prescribing of diuretics may need to be directed at overcoming these misperceptions.</p

Do general practitioners prescribe more antimicrobials when the weekend comes?

Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing contributes to the global spread of antimicrobial resistance. The pending weekend with changed availability of general practitioners (GP) and increased patient concern may increase the intention to prescribe antimicrobials. The aim of this study is to analyse variation in antimicrobial prescribing between weekdays and weekend in Irish general practice. All prescribing data over a 15 month period was obtained from the 30 practices participating in the Supporting the Improvement and Management of Prescribing for urinary tract infection (SIMPle) study. Antimicrobials were classified using anatomical therapeutic chemical classification code guidelines. Prescribing of antimicrobials per total number of prescriptions was compared between weekdays (Monday to Thursday) and the weekend (Friday to Sunday). Antimicrobials were generally more often prescribed during weekends; the antimicrobial prescribing rate was greater by 9.2 % on Friday compared to average prescribing on other weekdays (21.4 vs. 19.6 %). The chance of an antimicrobial prescription was 1.07 (95 % CI 1.04–1.10) higher on weekend days compared to weekdays. This was reflected in increased prescriptions for ampicillin, co-amoxiclav, nitrofurantoin, quinolones and macrolides. However, if antimicrobials were prescribed, no significant differences were observed between weekdays and weekend among the different classes of antimicrobials. GPs prescribe relatively more antimicrobials during the weekend compared to weekdays. However, the patterns of antimicrobial prescribing did not differ according to the day of prescription. Trial Registration The intervention was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 July 2013, ID number NCT0191386

Reforming disease definitions: a new primary care led, people-centred approach

Expanding disease definitions are causing more and more previously healthy people to be labelled as diseased, contributing to the problem of overdiagnosis and related overtreatment. Often the specialist guideline panels which expand definitions have close tis to industry and do not investigate the harms of defining more people as sick. Responding to growing calls to address these problems, an international group of leading researchers and clinicians is proposing a new way to set diagnostic thresholds and mark the boundaries of condition definitions, to try to tackle a key driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The group proposes new evidence-informed principles, with new process and new people constituting new multi-disciplinary panels, free from financial conflicts of interest