Search

Abstract Background Preventive health care is an important part of general practice however uptake of activities by patients is variable. Monetary incentives for doctors have been used in the UK and Australia to improve rates of screening and immunisation. Few studies have focussed on incentives for patients to attend preventive health care examinations. Our objective was to investigate the use of a monetary incentive to increase patient attendance with their general practitioner for a cardiovascular risk assessment (CVRA). Methods A pragmatic RCT was conducted in two Australian general practices. Participating GPs underwent academic detailing for cardiovascular risk assessment. 301 patients aged 40–74, who did not have cardiovascular disease, were independently randomised to receive a letter inviting them to a no cost cardiovascular risk assessment with their GP, or the same letter plus an offer of a $25 shopping voucher if they attended. An audit of patient medical records was also undertaken and a patient questionnaire administered to a sub sample of participants. Our main outcome measure was attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment. Results In the RCT, 56/301(18.6%) patients attended for cardiovascular risk assessment, 29/182 (15.9%) in the control group and 27/119 (22.7%) in the intervention group. The estimated difference of 6.8% (95% CI: -2.5% to 16.0%) was not statistically significant, P = 0.15. The audit showed that GPs may underestimate patients’ absolute cardiovascular risk and the questionnaire that mailed invitations from GPs for a CVRA may encourage patients to attend. Conclusions A small monetary incentive does not improve attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment. Further research should be undertaken to determine if there are other incentives that may increase attendance for preventive activities in the general practice setting. Clinical trials registration ACTRN12608000183381

Abstract Background Dementia is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. An earlier rather than later diagnosis allows persons with dementia and their families to plan ahead and access appropriate management. However, most diagnoses are made by general practitioners (GPs) later in the course of the disease and are associated with management that is poorly adherent to recommended guidelines. This trial examines the effectiveness of a peer led dementia educational intervention for GPs. Methods The study is a cluster randomised trial, conducted across three states and five sites. All GPs will complete an audit of their consenting patients aged 75 years or more at three time points - baseline, 12 and 24 months. GPs allocated to the intervention group will receive two educational sessions from a peer GP or nurse, and will administer the GPCOG to consenting patients at baseline and 12 months. The first education session will provide information about dementia and the second will provide individualised feedback on audit results. GPs in the waitlist group will receive the RACGP Guidelines by post following the 12 month audit Outcomes: Primary outcomes are carer and consumer quality of life and depression. Secondary outcomes include: rates of GP identification of dementia compared to a more detailed gold standard assessment conducted in the patient's home; GP identification of differential diagnoses including reversible causes of cognitive impairment; and GP referral to specialists, Alzheimers' Australia and support services. A "case finding" and a "screening" group will be compared and the psychometrics of the GPCOG will be examined. Sample size: Approximately 2,000 subjects aged 75 years and over will be recruited through approximately 160 GPs, to yield approximately 200 subjects with dementia (reducing to 168 by 24 months). Discussion The trial outlined in this paper has been peer reviewed and supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. At the time of submission of this paper 2,034 subjects have been recruited and the intervention delivered to 114 GPs. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12607000117415.

Abstract Background Patients attending general practices receive only about sixty per cent of the preventive services that are indicated for them. This pilot study explores patient acceptability and perceived utility of automatically generated prevention summary and reminder sheets provided to patients immediately before consultations with their general practitioners. Methods Adult patients attending a general practitioner in a practice in Adelaide and a general practitioner in a practice in Melbourne, Australia for consultations in January and February 2009 received automatically-generated prevention summary and reminder sheets that highlighted indicated preventive activities that were due to be performed, and that encouraged the patient to discuss these with the general practitioner in the consultation. Patients completed a post-consultation questionnaire and were interviewed about their experience of receiving the sheets. Results Sixty patients, median age 53 years (interquartile range 40-74) years, and 58% female, were recruited. Seventy eight per cent of patients found the sheets clear and easy to understand, 75% found them very or quite useful, 72% reported they had addressed with their general practitioner all of the preventive activities that were listed on the sheets as being due to be performed. A further 13% indicated that they had addressed most or some of the activities. 78% of patients said that they would like to keep receiving the sheets. Themes emerging from interviews with patients included: patient knowledge was enhanced; patient conceptions of health and the GP consultation were broadened; the consultation was enhanced; patient pro-activity was encouraged; patients were encouraged to plan their health care; the intervention was suitable for a variety of patients. Conclusions Most patients reported that they found the prevention summary and reminder sheets acceptable and useful. The actual increase in performance of preventive activities that may result from this new intervention needs to be tested in randomised controlled trials.

Abstract Background The Patient Participation Program (PPP) was a patient satisfaction survey endorsed by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and designed to assist general practitioners in continuous quality improvement (CQI). The survey was been undertaken by 3500 practices and over a million patients between 1994 and 2003. This study aimed to use pooled patient questionnaire data to investigate changes in satisfaction with primary care over time. Methods The results of 10 years of the PPP surveys were analyzed with respect to 10 variables including the year of completion, patient age, gender, practice size, attendance at other doctors, and whether the practice had previously undertaken the survey. Comparisons were made using Logistic Generalized Estimating Equations (LGEE). Results There was a very high level of satisfaction with general practice in Australia (99% of respondents). An independent indicator of satisfaction was created by pooling the results of 12 questions. This new indicator had a greater variance than the single overall satisfaction question. Participants were shown to have higher levels of satisfaction if they were male, older, did not attend other practitioners or the practice was small in size. A minimal improvement in satisfaction was detected in this pooled indicator for the second or third survey undertaken by a practice. There was however no statistically significant change in pooled satisfaction with the year of survey. Conclusion The very high level of satisfaction made it difficult to demonstrate change. It is likely that this and the presentation of results made it difficult for GPs to use the survey to improve their practices. A more useful survey would be more sensitive to detect negative patient opinions and provide integrated feedback to GPs. At present, there are concerns about the usefulness of the PPP in continuous quality improvement in general practice.

Background: Chronic insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder, with ten to thirty percent of Australian adults reporting chronic difficulties falling asleep and/or staying asleep such that it causes significant daytime impairment. Current Australian general practice guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first line treatment for insomnia, however research suggests that most general practice consultations for insomnia result in a prescription for hypnotic or sedative medicines. Although the first point of contact for patients experiencing symptoms of insomnia is often general practice, little is known about the current role, experiences and capacity of Australian general practitioners to manage insomnia. This study aimed to address that gap by exploring the attitudes and opinions of general practitioners regarding insomnia management, to inform the development and implementation of new models of best practice insomnia care within general practice., Methods: A descriptive, pragmatic qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit practising Australian general practitioners, varying in age, years of experience and geographic location. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analysed using thematic analysis.  RESULTS: Twenty-eight general practitioners participated in the study. Three major themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst general practitioners readily accepted responsibility for the management of insomnia, provision of care was often demanding and difficult within the funding and time constraints of general practice. Patients presenting with comorbid mental health conditions and insomnia, and decision-making regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for general practitioners. Whilst general practitioners confidently provided sleep hygiene education to patients, their knowledge and experience of CBTi, and access and understanding of specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited.  CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners report that whilst assessing and managing insomnia can be demanding, it is an integral part of general practice. Insomnia presents complexities for general practitioners. Greater clarity about funding options, targeted education about effective insomnia treatments, and referral pathways to specialist services, such as benzodiazepine withdrawal support and psychologists, would benefit insomnia management within general practice., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Little is known about whether a more comprehensive health assessment, performed by a general practitioner (GP) during a clinical encounter, could influence patients' lifestyle. We aimed to investigate whether health assessments, performed by GPs, are more important than the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cardiometabolic risk factors (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia) for engagement in lifestyle change., Methods: Cross-sectional, population-based survey conducted in South Australia (September-December 2017) using face-to-face interviews and self-reported data of 2977 individuals aged 15+ years. The main outcome was engagement in four lifestyle changes: 1) increasing fruit/vegetable intake, 2) increasing physical activity level, 3) reducing alcohol consumption, and 4) attempts to stop smoking. Health assessments performed by a GP in the last 12 months included clinical/laboratory investigations (weight/waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose levels, lipid levels) and questions about lifestyle/wellbeing (current diet, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake, mental health, sleeping problems). Results were restricted to individuals aged 35+ years because of the low prevalence of CVD or their risk factors among younger participants. Logistic regression was used in all associations, adjusted for sociodemographic, lifestyle, mental health, and clinical variables., Results: Of the 2384 investigated adults (mean age 57.3 ± 13.9 years; 51.9% females), 10.2% had CVD and 49.1% at least one cardiometabolic risk factor. Clinical/laboratory assessments performed by the GP were 2-3 times more frequent than assessments of lifestyle, mental health status, or sleeping problems, especially among those with CVD. Individuals with CVD or a cardiometabolic risk factor were no more likely to be increasing their fruit/vegetable consumption (33.6%), physical activity level (40.9%), reducing alcohol consumption (31.1%), or trying to quit smoking (34.0%) than 'healthy' participants. However, lifestyle changes were between 30 and 100% more likely when GPs performed three or more health assessments (either clinical/laboratory or questions about lifestyle/wellbeing) than when individuals did not visit the GP or when GPs performed no any assessment during these clinical encounters (p < 0.05 in all cases)., Conclusion: More frequent and comprehensive CVD-related assessments by GPs were more important in promoting a healthier lifestyle than the presence of CVD or cardiometabolic risk factors by themselves.

Background: The Patient Participation Program (PPP) was a patient satisfaction survey endorsed by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and designed to assist general practitioners in continuous quality improvement (CQI). The survey was been undertaken by 3500 practices and over a million patients between 1994 and 2003. This study aimed to use pooled patient questionnaire data to investigate changes in satisfaction with primary care over time., Methods: The results of 10 years of the PPP surveys were analyzed with respect to 10 variables including the year of completion, patient age, gender, practice size, attendance at other doctors, and whether the practice had previously undertaken the survey. Comparisons were made using Logistic Generalized Estimating Equations (LGEE)., Results: There was a very high level of satisfaction with general practice in Australia (99% of respondents). An independent indicator of satisfaction was created by pooling the results of 12 questions. This new indicator had a greater variance than the single overall satisfaction question. Participants were shown to have higher levels of satisfaction if they were male, older, did not attend other practitioners or the practice was small in size. A minimal improvement in satisfaction was detected in this pooled indicator for the second or third survey undertaken by a practice. There was however no statistically significant change in pooled satisfaction with the year of survey., Conclusion: The very high level of satisfaction made it difficult to demonstrate change. It is likely that this and the presentation of results made it difficult for GPs to use the survey to improve their practices. A more useful survey would be more sensitive to detect negative patient opinions and provide integrated feedback to GPs. At present, there are concerns about the usefulness of the PPP in continuous quality improvement in general practice.