Headache service quality evaluation : implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe

Funding Information: The German part was supported by Novartis®, without influence on design, conduct, analysis or reporting. Other parts received no financial support. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background: Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care. Methods: We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Results: The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Web Based Postgraduate Thesis/Dessertation System - A Prototype

With the advancement of information communication technology in Malaysia, education field should take advantage to upgrade their learning and management techniques. Students should be allowed to learn anytime, anywhere and at their own place. However administration and lecture should be able to manage their work more effective and flexible. The web-based system is effective way to learning and managing education works. This report outlines the development of a web-based postgraduate thesis/dissertation management system (WPTS), which aimed to assist thesis/dissertation administration, supervisor and students in the better integration during students doing the thesis/dissertation works. This prototype system base on case study with a group of MSC(IT), administration, lecturer and students who participate in thesis/dissertation management activities. This report also presenting the tests conducted with users, it also contributed some perspective regarding benefits that gain by administration, supervisor and students, and recommends future application of the approach

The fifth cranial nerve in headaches

The fifth cranial nerve is the common denominator for many headaches and facial pain pathologies currently known. Projecting from the trigeminal ganglion, in a bipolar manner, it connects to the brainstem and supplies various parts of the head and face with sensory innervation. In this review, we describe the neuroanatomical structures and pathways implicated in the sensation of the trigeminal system. Furthermore, we present the current understanding of several primary headaches, painful neuropathies and their pharmacological treatments. We hope that this overview can elucidate the complex field of headache pathologies, and their link to the trigeminal nerve, to a broader field of young scientists

Burden and attitude to resistant and refractory migraine: a survey from the European Headache Federation with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance

Background: New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods: We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results: There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions: This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities