Guidelines; from foe to friend? Comparative interviews with GPs in Norway and Denmark

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>GPs follow clinical guidelines to varying degrees across practices, regions and countries, but a review study of GPs' attitudes to guidelines found no systematic variation in attitudes between studies from different countries. However, earlier qualitative studies on this topic are not necessarily comparable. Hence, there is a lack of empirical comparative studies of GP's attitudes to following clinical guidelines. In this study we reproduce a Norwegian focus group study of GPs' general attitudes to national clinical guidelines in Denmark and conduct a comparative analysis of the findings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A strategic sample of GP's in Norway (27 GPs) and Denmark (18 GPs) was interviewed about their attitudes to guidelines, and the interviews coded and compared for common themes and differences.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Similarities dominated the comparative material, but the analysis also revealed notable differences in attitudes between Norwegian and the Danish GPs. The most important difference was related to GP's attitudes to clinical guidelines that incorporated economic evaluations. While the Norwegian GPs were sceptical to guidelines that incorporated economic evaluation, the Danish GPs regarded these guidelines as important and legitimate. We suggest that the differences could be explained by the history of guideline development in Norway and Denmark respectively. Whereas government guidelines for rationing services were only newly introduced in Norway, they have been used in Denmark for many years.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Comparative qualitative studies of GPs attitudes to clinical guidelines may reveal cross-national differences relating to the varying histories of guideline development. Further studies are needed to explore this hypothesis.</p

Allogeneic blood transfusion and prognosis following total hip replacement: a population-based follow up study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Allogeneic red blood cell transfusion is frequently used in total hip replacement surgery (THR). However, data on the prognosis of transfused patients are sparse. In this study we compared the risk of complications following THR in transfused and non-transfused patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based follow-up study was performed using data from medical databases in Denmark. We identified 28,087 primary THR procedures performed from 1999 to 2007, from which we computed a propensity score for red blood cell transfusion based on detailed data on patient-, procedure-, and hospital-related characteristics. We were able to match 2,254 transfused with 2,254 non-transfused THR patients using the propensity score.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 28,087 THR patients, 9,063 (32.3%) received at least one red blood cell transfusion within 8 days of surgery. Transfused patients had higher 90-day mortality compared with matched non-transfused patients: the adjusted OR was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.8). Blood transfusion was also associated with increased odds of pneumonia (OR 2.1; CI: 1.2-3.8), whereas the associations with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (OR 1.4; CI: 0.9-2.2) and venous thromboembolism (OR 1.2; CI: 0.7-2.1) did not reach statistical significance. The adjusted OR of reoperation due to infection was 0.6 (CI: 0.1-2.9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Red blood cell transfusion was associated with an adverse prognosis following primary THR, in particular with increased odds of death and pneumonia. Although the odds estimates may partly reflect unmeasured bias due to blood loss, they indicate the need for careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of transfusion even in relation to routine THR procedures.</p