Search

Background: In order to provide smoking cessation support to their patients in line with clinical practice guidelines, general practitioners must first ascertain whether their patients' use tobacco. This study examined (i) the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of general practitioner detection of smoking, and (ii) the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use. Methods: Eligible patients completed a touchscreen computer survey while waiting for an appointment with their general practitioner. Patients self-reported demographic characteristics, medical history, and current smoking status. Following the patient's consultation, their general practitioner was asked to indicate whether the patient was a current smoker (yes/no/unsure/not applicable). Smoking prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated using patient self-report of smoking status as the gold standard. Generalised estimating equations were used to examine the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use. Results: Fifty-one general practitioners and 1,573 patients in twelve general practices participated. Patient self-report of smoking was 11.3% compared to general practitioner estimated prevalence of 9.5%. Sensitivity of general practitioner assessment was 66% [95% CI 59-73] while specificity was 98% [95% CI 97-98]. Positive predictive value was 78% [95% CI 71-85] and negative predictive value was 96% [95% CI 95-97]. No general practitioner factors were associated with detection of smoking. Patients with a higher level of education or who responded ‘Other' were less likely to be detected as smokers than patients who had completed a high school or below level of education. Conclusion: Despite the important role general practitioners play in providing smoking cessation advice and support, a substantial proportion of general practitioners do not know their patient's smoking status. This represents a significant missed opportunity in the provision of preventive healthcare. Electronic waiting room assessments may assist general practitioners in improving the identification of smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Primary care providers are an important source of information regarding appropriate alcohol consumption. As early presentation to a provider for alcohol-related concerns is unlikely, it is important that providers are able to identify at-risk patients in order to provide appropriate advice. This study aimed to report the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of General Practitioner (GP) assessment of alcohol consumption compared to patient self-report, and explore characteristics associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Method GP practices were selected from metropolitan and regional locations in Australia. Eligible patients were adults presenting for general practice care who were able to understand English and provide informed consent. Patients completed a modified AUDIT-C by touchscreen computer as part of an omnibus health survey while waiting for their appointment. GPs completed a checklist for each patient, including whether the patient met current Australian guidelines for at-risk alcohol consumption. Patient self-report and GP assessments were compared for each patient. Results GPs completed the checklist for 1720 patients, yielding 1565 comparisons regarding alcohol consumption. The sensitivity of GPs' detection of at-risk alcohol consumption was 26.5%, with specificity of 96.1%. Higher patient education was associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Conclusions GP awareness of which patients might benefit from advice regarding at-risk alcohol consumption appears low. Given the complexities associated with establishing whether alcohol consumption is 'at-risk', computer-based approaches to routine screening of patients are worthy of exploration as a method for prompting the provision of advice in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite controversy about the benefits of routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, rates of participation continue to rise. It is important to ensure that men are fully informed about the potential risks associated with this test. Little is known about the processes of shared decision making for PSA testing in the family practice setting. This study aimed to explore men's experiences of PSA testing participation and risk disclosure for PSA testing. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of male family practice attendees aged 40 years or older, with no previous history of prostate cancer, between June 2010 and November 2011. Questions related to whether participants had undertaken PSA testing or discussed this with their doctor over the past 5 years, whether the patient or doctor had initiated the discussion, reasons for undergoing testing, and whether their doctor had discussed particular risks associated with PSA testing Results: Sixty-seven percent (215/320) of men recalled having a PSA test in the past five years. Of the respondents who reported not having a test, 14% had discussed it with their doctor. The main reasons for having a PSA test were doctor recommendation and wanting to keep up to date with health tests. Thirty-eight percent or fewer respondents reported being advised of each potential risk. Conclusions: Despite debate over the benefits of routine PSA testing, a high proportion of male family practice attendees report undertaking this test. Risks associated with testing appear to be poorly disclosed by general practitioners. These results suggest the need to improve the quality of informed consent for PSA testing in the family practice setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]