Training specialists to write appropriate reply letters to general practitioners about patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms; A cluster-randomized trial.

Objective: To evaluate effects of a communication training for specialists on the quality of their reply letters to general practitioners (GPs) about patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Methods: Before randomization, specialists included ≤3 MUPS patients in a multi-center cluster-randomized trial. In 14 h of MUPS-specific communication training, 2.5 h focused on reply letters. Letters were discussed with regard to reporting and answering GPs' referral questions and patients' questions, and to reporting findings, explaining MUPS with perpetuating factors and giving advice. After the training, all doctors again included ≤3 MUPS patients. Reply letters to GPs were assessed for quality and blindly rated on a digital scale. Results: We recruited 478 MUPS patients and 123 specialists; 80% of the doctors wrote ≥1 reply letters, 285 letters were assessed. Trained doctors reported (61% versus 37%, OR=2.55, F(1281)=6.60, pgroup*time=.01) and answered (63% versus 33%, OR=3.31, F(1281)=5.36, pgroup*time=.02) patients' questions more frequently than untrained doctors. Conclusion: Training improves reply letters with regard to patients' questions, but not with regard to the following: GPs' referral questions, somatic findings, additional testing, explaining, and advice. Practice implications: Training specialists to write appropriate reply letters needs more focus on explanation and advice

Thrombin generation in mesalazine refractory ulcerative colitis and the influence of low molecular weight heparin

Background In ulcerative colitis (UC), a state of hypercoagulation has frequently been observed. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has shown beneficial effects as an adjuvant treatment of steroid refractory UC in open trials. We assessed potential therapeutic effects of the LMWH reviparin in hospitalised patients with mesalazine refractory UC, as well as its influence on haemostasis factors. Methods Twenty-nine patients with mild-to-moderately active UC were included in a double-blind placebo controlled trial. All patients had a flare-up of disease under mesalazine treatment. Reviparin (Clivarin (R)) 3,436 IU anti-Xa/0.6 ml or placebo s.c. was added, and self-administered twice daily for 8 weeks. Patients were monitored for possible adverse events and changes in clinical symptoms. Endoscopical, histological, biochemical and haemostasis parameters were analysed. Results Tolerability and compliance were excellent and no serious adverse events occurred. No significant differences were observed on the clinical, endoscopical and histological outcome, as compared to placebo. A high intrinsic and extrinsic thrombin potential was found before LMWH therapy. However, the significant reduction in the thrombin generation by LMWH was not related to the reduction in disease activity. Conclusion The LMWH reviparine reduces thrombin generation in patients with mild-to-moderately active, mesalazine refractory UC, but is not associated with a reduction in disease activity