Search

Background: Work stress is a common problem among the health personnel of the Spanish National Health System. The objective of this paper is to assess the state of mindfulness among Spanish primary care providers and to evaluate its potential relationship with work stress and basic labor and sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional, multi-centric study. Primary care nurses, teachers, teaching collaborators and residents assigned to six Spanish Family Medicine/Family and Community Care Departments were invited to participate (n = 475). A template was designed in Google Forms, including sociodemographic and work-related variables. The state of mindfulness was measured with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), while work-related stress was measured using an ordinal scale ranging from 0 to 10 points. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were carried out, as well as bivariate and multivariate statistics. Results: The mean age of participants was 40,14 ± 13.12 (range:23–65 years); 66.9% were women, 42.5% internal medicine residents, 29.3% family physicians, and 20.2% nurses. More than half (54.5%) knew about mindfulness, with 24.0% have received training on it, and 22.5% were usual practitioners. The average level of mindfulness was 127.18 ± 15.45 (range: 89–177). The average score of stress at work was 6.00 ± 2.44; 49.9% (range: 0–10). 49.9% of participants scored 7 or more on the stress at work scale. There was an inverse correlation between the levels of mindfulness (FFMQ total score) and work-related stress (Spearman's r = − 0.155, p = 0.003). Significant relationships between the mindfulness practice and the level of mindfulness (F = 29.80, p < 0.001), as well as between the mindfulness practice and the level of work-related stress (F = 9.68, p = 0.042), were also found. Conclusions: Levels of mindfulness in primary care health providers were in line with those levels observed in other groups of health professionals. Half of all of the primary care providers suffered from a high degree of stress. Although weak, inverse relationships were observed between levels of mindfulness and stress at work, with lower values of stress at work among those who practiced mindfulness. Trial registration: NCT03629457. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variation in prescription of antibiotics in primary care can indicate poor clinical practice that contributes to the increase of resistant strains. General Practitioners (GPs), as a professional group, are expected to have a fairly homogeneous prescribing style. In this paper, we describe variation in prescribing style within and across groups of GPs from six countries. Methods: Cross-sectional study with the inclusion of 457 GPs and 6394 sore throat patients. We describe variation in prescribing antibiotics for sore throat patients across six countries and assess whether variation in “prescribing style” - understood as a subjective tendency to prescribe - has an important effect on variation in prescription of antibiotics by using the concept of prescribing style as a latent variable in a multivariable model. We report variation as a Median Odds Ratio (MOR) which is the transformation of the random effect variance onto an odds ratio; Thus, MOR = 1 means similar odds or strict homogeneity between GPs' prescribing style, while a MOR higher than 1 denotes heterogeneity in prescribing style. Results: In all countries some GPs always prescribed antibiotics to all their patients, while other GPs never did. After adjusting for patient and GP characteristics, prescribing style in the group of GPs from Russia was about three times more heterogeneous than the prescribing style in the group of GPs from Denmark - Median Odds Ratio (6.8, 95% CI 3.1;8.8) and (2.6, 95% CI 2.2;4.4) respectively. Conclusion: Prescribing style is an important source of variation in prescription of antibiotics within and across countries, even after adjusting for patient and GP characteristics. Interventions aimed at influencing the prescribing style of GPs must encompass context-specific actions at the policy-making level alongside GP-targeted interventions to enable GPs to react more objectively to the external demands that are in place when making the decision of prescribing antibiotics or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing the fidelity of an implementation strategy is important to understand why and how the strategy influences the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The present study aims to assess the fidelity of the two procedures for engaging primary care (PC) professionals and for the deployment of an implementation strategy for optimizing type 2 diabetes prevention in routine PC within the PREDIAPS randomized cluster implementation trial. Method: We conducted a mixed-method fidelity evaluation study of the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy. Nine PC centers from the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza) were allocated to two different procedures to engage physicians and nurses and deploy a implementation strategy to model and adapt the clinical intervention and its implementation to their specific contexts: a Global procedure, promoting the cooperation of all healthcare professionals from the beginning; or a Sequential procedure, centered first on nurses who then pursued the pragmatic cooperation of physicians. Process indicators of the delivery and receipt of implementation strategy actions, documented modifications to the planned implementation strategy, and a structured group interview with centers' leaders were all used to assess the following components of fidelity: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, professionals' responsiveness and program differentiation. Results: Generally, the procedures compared for professionals engagement and deployment of the implementation strategy were carried out with the planned differentiation. Nonetheless, some unexpected between-group differences were observed, the initial rate of collaboration of nurses being higher in the Sequential (93%) than in the Global (67%) groups. Exposure rate to the programed implementation actions (% of hours received out of those delivered) were similar in both groups by professional category, with nurses (86%) having a higher rate of exposure than physicians (75%). Professionals identified half of the planned discrete strategies and their rating of strategies' perceived usefulness was overwhelmingly positive, with few differences between Sequential and Global centers. Conclusions: The PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy has been implemented with high fidelity and minor unplanned reactive modifications. Professionals' exposure to the implementation strategy was high in both groups. The centers' organizational context (i.e., work overload) led to small mismatches between groups in participation and exposure of professionals to implementation actions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03254979. Registered 16 August 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical coordination across care levels is a priority for health systems around the world, especially for those based on primary health care. The aim of this study is to analyse the degree of clinical information and clinical management coordination across healthcare levels in the Catalan national health system experienced by primary (PC) and secondary care (SC) doctors and explore the associated factors. Methods: Cross-sectional study based on an online survey using the self-administered questionnaire COORDENA-CAT. Data collection: October–December 2017. Study population: PC and SC (acute and long term) doctors of the Catalan national health system. Participation rate was 21%, with a sample of 3308 doctors. Outcome variables: cross-level clinical information coordination, clinical management coordination, and perception of cross-level coordination within the area. Explanatory variables: socio-demographic, employment characteristics, attitude towards job, type of area (according to type of hospital and management), interactional factors, organizational factors and knowledge of existing coordination mechanisms. Stratification variable: level of care. Descriptive and multivariate analysis by logistic regression. Results: The degree of clinical coordination experienced across levels of care was high for both PC and SC doctors, although PC doctors experienced greater exchange and use of information and SC doctors experienced greater consistency of care. However, only 32.13% of PC and 35.72% of SC doctors found that patient care was coordinated across care levels within their area. In both levels of care, knowing the doctors of the other level, working in an area where the same entity manages SC and majority of PC, and holding joint clinical case conferences were factors positively associated with perceiving high levels of clinical coordination. Other associated factors were specific to the care level, such as being informed of a patient's discharge from hospital for PC doctors, or trusting in the clinical skills of the other care level for SC doctors. Conclusions: Interactional and organizational factors are positively associated with perceiving high levels of clinical coordination. Introducing policies to enhance such factors can foster clinical coordination between different health care levels. The COORDENA questionnaire allows us to identify fields for improvement in clinical coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Process evaluation is recommended to improve the understanding of underlying mechanisms related to clinicians, patients, context and intervention delivery that may impact on trial or program results, feasibility and transferability to practice. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the Prescribe Healthy Life (PVS from the Spanish "Prescribe Vida Saludable") implementation strategy for enhancing the adoption and implementation of an evidence-based health promotion intervention in primary health care. Methods: A descriptive study of 2-year implementation indicators for the PVS clinical intervention was conducted in four primary health care centers. A multifaceted collaborative modeling implementation strategy was developed to enhance the integration of a clinical intervention to promote healthy lifestyles into clinical practice. Process indicators were assessed for intervention reach, adoption, implementation, sustainability and their variability at center, practice, and patient levels. Results: Mean rates of adoption by means of active collaboration among the three main professional categories (family physicians, nurses and administrative personnel) were 75% in all centers. Just over half of the patients that attended (n = 11650; 51.9%) were reached in terms of having their lifestyle habits assessed, while more than a third (33.7%; n = 7433) and almost 10% (n = 2175) received advice or a printed prescription for at least one lifestyle change, respectively. Only 3.7% of the target population received a repeat prescription. These process indicators significantly (p < 0.001) varied by center, lifestyle habit and patient characteristics. Sustainability of intervention components changed thorough the implementation period within centers. Conclusions: The implementation strategy used showed moderate-to-good performance on process indicators related to adoption, reach, and implementation of the evidence-based healthy lifestyle promotion intervention in the context of routine primary care. Sources of heterogeneity and instability in these indicators may improve our understanding of factors required to attain adequate program adoption and implementation through improved implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of lifestyle on health is undeniable and effective healthy lifestyle promotion interventions do exist. However, this is not a fundamental part of routine primary care clinical practice. We describe factors that determine changes in performance of primary health care centers involved in piloting the health promotion innovation 'Prescribe Vida Saludable' (PVS) phase II. Methods: We engaged four primary health care centers of the Basque Healthcare Service in an action research project aimed at changing preventive health practices. Prescribe Healthy Life (PVS from the Spanish "Prescribe Vida Saludable) is focused on designing, planning, implementing and evaluating innovative programs to promote multiple healthy habits, feasible to be performed in routine primary health care conditions. After 2 years of piloting, centers were categorized as having high, medium, or low implementation effectiveness. We completed qualitative inductive and deductive analysis of five focus groups with the staff of the centers. Themes generated through consensual grounded qualitative analysis were compared between centers to identify the dimensions that explain the variation in actual implementation of PVS, and retrospectively organized and assessed against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Of the 36 CFIR constructs, 11 were directly related to the level of implementation performance: intervention source, evidence strength and quality, adaptability, design quality and packaging, tension for change, learning climate, self-efficacy, planning, champions, executing, and reflecting and evaluating, with --organizational tracking added as a new sub-construct. Additionally, another seven constructs emerged in the participants' discourse but were not related to center performance: relative advantage, complexity, patients' needs and resources, external policy and incentives, structural characteristics, available resources, and formally appointed internal implementation leaders. Our findings indicate that the success of the implementation seems to be associated with the following components: the context, the implementation process, and the collaborative modelling. Conclusions: Identifying barriers and enablers is useful for designing implementation strategies for health promotion in primary health care centers that are essential for innovation success. An implementation model is proposed to highlight the relationships between the CFIR constructs in the context of health promotion in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of sore throat varies widely in Europe. The objective of this study was to gain insight into clinicians' perceptions on the current management of sore throat in Spain. Methods: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire study answered from July to September 2013. General practitioners (GPs) affiliated with the two largest scientific societies of primary care were invited to participate in the study. Questions were asked about physician knowledge, the use of current national guidelines for sore throat management, and management in two clinical scenarios, depicting a young adult with sore throat and: 1. cough, coriza with or without fever, and 2. fever without cough and coriza. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1476 GPs (5%) and 12.7% declared using rapid antigen detection tests. Antibiotics were considered by 18.8% of the GPs in the first scenario and by 32% in the second scenario (p < 0.001). The antibiotics most commonly mentioned by GPs were amoxicillin and amoxicillin + clavulanate (52.7 and 31.2%, respectively) whereas penicillin V was only prescribed in 11.9% of the cases. The drugs most commonly considered in both scenarios were analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs. Antitussives, decongestants and expectorants were more commonly prescribed in cases of suspected viral infection (p < 0.001). Conclusions: GPs have misconceptions as to the indications for using rapid antigen detection tests and prescribing drugs in the management of sore throat. These results suggest that guidelines are seldom followed since one in five GPs declared giving antibiotics for patients with a suspected viral infection and the use of second-choice antibiotics seems considerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a context of increasing demand and pressure on the public health expenditure, appropriateness of colonoscopy indications is a topic of discussion. The objective of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy requests performed in a primary care (PC) setting in Catalonia. Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Out-patients >14 years of age, referred by their reference physicians from PC or hospital care settings to the endoscopy units in their reference hospitals, to undergo a colonoscopy. Evaluation of the appropriateness of 1440 colonoscopy requests issued from January to July 2011, according to the EPAGE-II guidelines (European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy). Results: The most frequent indications of diagnostic suspicion requests were: rectal bleeding (37.46 %), abdominal pain (26.54 %), and anaemia study (16.78 %). The most frequent indications of disease follow-up were adenomas (58.1 %), and CRC (31.16 %). Colonoscopy was appropriate in 73.68 % of the cases, uncertain in 16.57 %, and inappropriate in 9.74 %. In multivariate analysis, performed colonoscopies reached an OR of 9.9 (CI 95 % 1.16-84.08) for qualifying as appropriate for colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis, 1.49 (CI 95 % 1.1-2.02) when requested by a general practitioner, and 1.09 (CI 95 % 1.07-1.1) when performed on women. Conclusions: Appropriateness of colonoscopy requests in our setting shows a suitable situation in accordance with recognized standards. General practitioners contribute positively to this appropriateness level. It is necessary to provide physicians with simple and updated guidelines, which stress recommendations for avoiding colonoscopy requests in the most prevalent conditions in PC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is known that making people change their habits is challenging. It is crucial to identify the most effective approach that general practitioners (GPs) should use to help their patients change unhealthy habits. The objective this study was to assess the efficacy of a multifactorial intervention based on Motivational Interviewing performed by general practitioners to enhance lipid levels in patients with dyslipidemia, as compared to standard care. Methods: A multicenter, controlled, randomized, cluster, two-parallel arm trial with a 12-month follow-up conducted in 25 community health centers of the Spanish. 38 GPs and 227 primary care patients with uncontrolled dyslipidemia were included in the trial. GPs performed an intervention based either on Motivational Interviewing (MI) or standard practice. Lipid levels were measured, and the control degree was analyzed based on the criteria of clinical guidelines. Results: 107 were assigned to the Experimental Group (EG) and 120 to the Control Group (CG). An overall improvement was achieved in total cholesterol levels (Mean Difference -MD- = -19.60; 95 % CI:-15.33 at-23.87 mg/dl; p< 0.001), LDL-cholesterol levels (MD = -13.78; 95 % CI: -9.77 at -17.79 mg/dl; p < 0.001 ) and triglycerides (MD = -19.14; CI 95 %: -11.29 at -26.99 mg/dl; p < 0.001). No differences were found between the two groups. However, when we assessed the degree of lipid control by combining cholesterol <200 mg/dl and LDL-cholesterol < 130 mg/dl parameters, it was observed that a higher percentage of patients achieved target figures in the EG versus CG (13.1 % vs. 5.0 %; adjusted OR = 5.77, 95% CI: 1.67-19.91). Conclusion: A Motivational Interviewing-based approach conducted by Primary Care physicians aimed at patients with dyslipidemia, achieved a significant reduction in all lipid parameters, cardiovascular risk, weight reduction and the adherence to the Mediterranean diet, similar to that obtained with the usual intervention and superior in the proportion of patients achieving combined lipid control goals and the level of physical exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Newly arrived immigrant patients who frequently use primary health care resources have difficulties in verbal communication. Also, they have a system of beliefs related to health and disease that makes difficult for health care professionals to comprehend their reasons for consultation, especially when consulting for somatic manifestations. Consequently, this is an important barrier to achieve optimum care to these groups. The current project has two main objectives: 1. To define the different stressors, the level of distress perceived, and its impact in terms of discomfort and somatisation affecting the main communities of immigrants in our area, and 2. To identify the characteristics of cross-cultural competence of primary health care professionals to best approach these reasons for consultation. Methods/Design: It will be a transversal, observational, multicentre, qualitative-quantitative study in a sample of 980 people from the five main non-European Union immigrant communities residing in Catalonia: Maghrebis, Sub-Saharans, Andean South Americans, Hindustanis, and Chinese. Sociodemographic data, level of distress, information on the different stressors and their somatic manifestations will be collected in specific questionnaires. Through a semi-structured interview and qualitative methodology, it will be studied the relation between somatic manifestations and particular beliefs of each group and how these are associated with the processes of disease and seeking for care. A qualitative methodology based on individual interviews centred on critical incidents, focal groups and in situ questionnaires will be used to study the cross-cultural competences of the professionals. Discussion: It is expected a high level of chronic stress associated with the level of somatisations in the different non-European Union immigrant communities. The results will provide better knowledge of these populations and will improve the comprehension and the efficacy of the health care providers in prevention, communication, care management and management of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lifestyle is one of the main determinants of people's health. It is essential to find the most effective prevention strategies to be used to encourage behavioral changes in their patients. Many theories are available that explain change or adherence to specific health behaviors in subjects. In this sense the named Motivational Interviewing has increasingly gained relevance. Few well-validated instruments are available for measuring doctors' communication skills, and more specifically the Motivational Interviewing. Methods/Design: The hypothesis of this study is that the Scale for Measuring Motivational Interviewing Skills (EVEM questionnaire) is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the primary care professionals skills to get behavior change in patients. To test the hypothesis we have designed a prospective, observational, multi-centers tudy to validate a measuring instrument. -Scope: Thirty-two primary care centers in Spain. -Sampling and Size: a) face and consensual validity: A group composed of 15 experts in Motivational Interviewing. b) Assessment of the psychometric properties of the scale; 50 physician- patient encounters will be videoed; a total of 162 interviews will be conducted with six standardized patients, and another 200 interviews will be conducted with 50 real patients (n=362). Four physicians will be specially trained to assess 30 interviews randomly selected to test the scale reproducibility. -Measurements for to test the hypothesis: a) Face validity: development of a draft questionnaire based on a theoretical model, by using Delphi-type methodology with experts. b) Scale psychometric properties: intraobservers will evaluate video recorded interviews: content-scalability validity (Exploratory Factor Analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), intra-/inter-observer reliability (Kappa index, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland & Altman methodology), generalizability, construct validity and sensitivity to change (Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient). Discussion: The verification of the hypothesis that EVEM is a valid and reliable tool for assessing motivational interviewing would be a major breakthrough in the current theoretical and practical knowledge, as it could be used to assess if the providers put into practice a patient centered communication style and can be used both for training or researching purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures on the follow-up and control of chronic diseases in primary care. Methods: Retrospective study in 288 primary care practices (PCP) of the Catalan Institute of Health. We analysed the results of 34 indicators of the Healthcare quality standard (EQA), comprising different types: treatment (4), follow-up (5), control (10), screening (7), vaccinations (4) and quaternary prevention (4). For each PCP, we calculated each indicator's percentage of change in February, March and April 2020 respective to the results of the previous month; and used the T-Student test for paired data to compare them with the percentage of change in the same month of the previous year. We defined indicators with a negative effect those with a greater negative change or a lesser positive change in 2020 in comparison to 2019; and indicators with a positive effect those with a greater positive change or a lesser negative change. Results: We observed a negative effect on 85% of the EQA indicators in March and 68% in April. 90% of the control indicators had a negative effect, highlighting the control of LDL cholesterol with a reduction of − 2.69% (95%CI − 3.17% to − 2.23%) in March and − 3.41% (95%CI − 3.82% to − 3.01%) in April; and the control of blood pressure with a reduction of − 2.13% (95%CI − 2.34% to − 1.9%) and − 2.59% (95%CI − 2.8% to − 2.37%). The indicators with the greatest negative effect were those of screening, such as the indicator of diabetic foot screening with a negative effect of − 2.86% (95%CI − 3.33% to − 2.39%) and − 4.13% (95%CI − 4.55% to − 3.71%) in March and April, respectively. Only one vaccination indicator, adult Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine, had a negative effect in both months. Finally, among the indicators of quaternary prevention, we observed negative effects in March and April although in that case a lower inadequacy that means better clinical outcome. Conclusions: The COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures have significantly reduced the results of the follow-up, control, screening and vaccination indicators for patients in primary care. On the other hand, the indicators for quaternary prevention have been strengthened and their results have improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]