Impact of dizziness on everyday life in older primary care patients: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dizziness is a common and often disabling symptom, but diagnosis often remains unclear; especially in older persons where dizziness tends to be multicausal. Research on dizziness-related impairment might provide options for a functional oriented approach, with less focus on finding diagnoses. We therefore studied dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients and aimed to identify indicators related to this impairment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a cross-sectional study we included 417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 general practitioners in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008. We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. Our primary outcome was impact of dizziness on everyday life measured with the Dutch validated version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). After a bootstrap procedure (1500x) we investigated predictability of DHI-scores with stepwise backward multiple linear and logistic regressions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>DHI-scores varied from 0 to 88 (maximum score: 100) and 60% of patients experienced moderate or severe impact on everyday life due to dizziness. Indicators for dizziness-related impairment were: onset of dizziness 6 months ago or more (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7), frequency of dizziness at least daily (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.0-5.4), duration of dizziness episode one minute or less (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.9), presence of anxiety and/or depressive disorder (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.2-8.8), use of sedative drugs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.8) , and impaired functional mobility (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7-4.2). For this model with only 6 indicators the AUC was .80 (95% CI .76-.84).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients is considerable (60%). With six simple indicators it is possible to identify which patients suffer the most from their dizziness without exactly knowing the cause(s) of their dizziness. Influencing these indicators, if possible, may lead to functional improvement and this might be effective in patients with moderate or severe impact of dizziness on their daily lives.</p

Excluding pulmonary embolism in primary care using the Wells-rule in combination with a point-of care D-dimer test: a scenario analysis

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In secondary care the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR) combined with a quantitative D-dimer test can exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) safely. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests facilitates a similar diagnostic strategy in primary care. We estimated failure-rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a POC-D-dimer test for excluding PE in primary care. We considered ruling out PE safe if the failure rate was <2% with a maximum upper confidence limit of 2.7%. METHODS: We performed a scenario-analysis on data of 2701 outpatients suspected of PE. We used test characteristics of two qualitative POC-D-dimer tests, as derived from a meta-analysis and combined these with the Wells-CDR-score. RESULTS: In scenario 1 (SimpliRed-D-dimer sensitivity 85%, specificity 74%) PE was excluded safely in 23.8% of patients but only by lowering the cut-off value of the Wells rule to <2. (failure rate: 1.4%, 95% CI 0.6-2.6%) In scenario 2 (Simplify-D-dimer sensitivity 87%, specificity 62%) PE was excluded safely in 12.4% of patients provided that the Wells-cut-off value was set at 0. (failure rate: 0.9%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) CONCLUSION: Theoretically a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a qualitative POC-D-dimer test can be used safely to exclude PE in primary care albeit with only moderate efficienc

Defining frequent attendance in general practice

Background: General practitioners (GPs) or researchers sometimes need to identify frequent attenders (FAs) in order to screen them for unidentified problems and to test specific interventions. We wanted to assess different methods for selecting FAs to identify the most feasible and effective one for use in a general (group) practice. Methods: In the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, data were collected on 375 899 persons registered with 104 practices. Frequent attendance is defined as the top 3% and 10% of enlisted patients in each one-year age-sex group measured during the study year. We used these two selections as our reference standard. We also selected the top 3% and 10% FAs (90 and 97 percentile) based on four selection methods of diminishing preciseness. We compared the test characteristics of these four methods. Results: Of all enlisted patients, 24 % did not consult the practice during the study year. The mean number of contacts in the top 10% FAs increased in men from 5.8 (age 15-24 years) to 17.5 (age 64-75 years) and in women from 9.7 to 19.8. In the top 3% of FAs, contacts increased in men from 9.2 to 24.5 and in women from 14 to 27.8. The selection of FAs becomes more precise when smaller age classes are used. All selection methods show acceptable results (kappa 0.849 - 0.942) except the three group method. Conclusion: To correctly identify frequent attenders in general practice, we recommend dividing patients into at least three age groups per se

Do general practitioners adhere to the guideline on infectious conjunctivitis? Results of the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 1996 the guideline 'The Red Eye' was first published by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. The extent to which general practitioners adhere to this guideline is unclear. Recently, data on the management of infectious conjunctivitis by general practitioners became available from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. We measured the age-specific incidence of infectious conjunctivitis, described its management by Dutch general practitioners, and then compared these findings with the recommendations made in the guideline.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2001, over a 12-month period, data from all patient contacts with 195 general practitioners were taken from electronic medical records. Registration was episode-oriented; all consultations dealing with the same health problem were grouped into disease episodes. Data concerning all episodes of infectious conjunctivitis (ICPC-code F70 and sub codes) were analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over one year, 5,213 new and recurrent episodes of infectious conjunctivitis were presented to general practitioners from a population of N = 375,899, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 13.9 per 1000 person-years, varying from more than 80/1000 py in children up to one-year old, to less than 12/1000 py in children over the age of 4. Topical ophthalmic ointments were prescribed in 87% of the episodes, of which 80% was antibiotic treatment. Fusidic acid gel was most frequently prescribed (69%). In most episodes general practitioners did not adhere to the guideline.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In 2001, the management of infectious conjunctivitis by Dutch general practitioners was not in accordance with the recommendations of the consensus-based guideline published five years previously, despite its wide distribution. In 2006 this guideline was revised. Its successful implementation requires more than distribution alone. Probably the most effective way to achieve this is by following a model for systemic implementation.</p

Excluding pulmonary embolism in primary care using the Wells-rule in combination with a point-of care D-dimer test: a scenario analysis

Abstract Background In secondary care the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR) combined with a quantitative D-dimer test can exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) safely. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests facilitates a similar diagnostic strategy in primary care. We estimated failure-rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a POC-D-dimer test for excluding PE in primary care. We considered ruling out PE safe if the failure rate was Methods We performed a scenario-analysis on data of 2701 outpatients suspected of PE. We used test characteristics of two qualitative POC-D-dimer tests, as derived from a meta-analysis and combined these with the Wells-CDR-score. Results In scenario 1 (SimpliRed-D-dimer sensitivity 85%, specificity 74%) PE was excluded safely in 23.8% of patients but only by lowering the cut-off value of the Wells rule to In scenario 2 (Simplify-D-dimer sensitivity 87%, specificity 62%) PE was excluded safely in 12.4% of patients provided that the Wells-cut-off value was set at 0. (failure rate: 0.9%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) Conclusion Theoretically a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a qualitative POC-D-dimer test can be used safely to exclude PE in primary care albeit with only moderate efficiency.</p

14-day Holter monitoring for atrial fibrillation after ischemic stroke: The yield of guideline-recommended monitoring duration

Introduction: Current European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines recommend >48 h of continuous electrocardiographic monitoring for atrial fibrillation (AF) in all patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) with undetermined origin. We assessed the yield of the guideline-recommended monitoring for AF, as well as of extending monitoring up to 14 days. Patients and methods: We included consecutive patients with stroke/TIA without AF in an academic hospital in The Netherlands. We reported AF incidence and number needed to screen (NNS) in the overall sample after 48 h and 14 days of Holter monitoring. Results: Among 379 patients with median age 63 years (IQR 55–73), 58% male, Holter monitoring detected 10 cases of incident AF during a median of 13 (IQR 12–14) days of monitoring. Seven AF cases were detected within the first 48 hours (incidence 1.85%, 95% CI 0.74–3.81; NNS 54), and three additional AF cases were recorded among the 362 patients with >48 h of monitoring and without AF ⩽ 48 h (incidence 0.83%, 95% CI: 0.17–2.42; NNS 121). All AF cases were detected within the first 7 days of monitoring. Our sample was subject to sampling bias favoring inclusion of participants with low AF risk. Discussion: Strengths of this work were the broad inclusion criteria as recommended by ESO guidelines, and high Holter adherence among participants. The analysis was limited by inclusion of lower-risk cases and a relatively small sample size. Conclusion: In low-risk patients with recent stroke or TIA, ESO guideline-recommended screening for AF resulted in a low AF yield, with limited additional value of monitoring up to 14 days. Our results underline the need for a personalized approach in determining a patient’s optimum duration for post-stroke non-invasive ambulatory monitoring

Distribution of prescriptions across different topical ophthalmic ointments (%)

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Do general practitioners adhere to the guideline on infectious conjunctivitis? Results of the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/8/54</p><p>BMC Family Practice 2007;8():54-54.</p><p>Published online 16 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2034564.</p><p></p