Search

Abstract: Introduction and objective: The ODHIN trial found that training and support and financial reimbursement increased the proportion of patients that were screened and given advice for their heavy drinking in primary health care. However, the impact of these strategies on professional accuracy in delivering screening and brief advice is underresearched and is the focus of this paper. Method: From 120 primary health care units (24 in each jurisdiction: Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden), 746 providers participated in the baseline and the 12‐week implementation periods. Accuracy was measured in 2 ways: correctness in completing and scoring the screening instrument, AUDIT‐C; the proportion of screen‐negative patients given advice, and the proportion of screen‐positive patients not given advice. Odds ratios of accuracy were calculated for type of profession and for intervention group: training and support, financial reimbursement, and internet‐based counselling. Results: Thirty‐two of 36 711 questionnaires were incorrectly completed, and 65 of 29 641 screen‐negative patients were falsely classified. At baseline, 27% of screen‐negative patients were given advice, and 22.5% screen‐positive patients were not given advice. These proportions halved during the 12‐week implementation period, unaffected by training. Financial reimbursement reduced the proportion of screen‐positive patients not given advice (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31‐0.99; P < .05). Conclusion: Although the use of AUDIT‐C as a screening tool was accurate, a considerable proportion of risky drinkers did not receive advice, which was reduced with financial incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper was to compare selected indication parameters for patients scheduled for hip and knee replacement at orthopaedic units in Sweden. Swedish orthopaedic clinics performing joint replacement were invited to enrol in the study. The study time was set to 2 years (from June 2006 to June 2008). The study subjects were patients undergoing hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis (OA). For data collection, we used a Swedish priority criteria tool based on a translation from a form used in Canada with minor changes. The reliability and validity of the Swedish tool were investigated, with good reproducibility. The questionnaires (one for the doctor and one for the patient) were completed during decision making for surgery. Eleven hospitals enrolled in the study. In total, 2961 patients were included during the study period. Among these, 1662 were hip replacement patients and 1299 were knee replacement patients. The vast majority of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement had findings indicating severe OA, both clinically and radiologically according to the clinical priority tool. Statistically significant self-reported problems with pain at rest, walking and impaired activities of daily living were also observed. There were statistically significant differences in reported indications between the hospitals, both for hip OA patients and for knee OA patients. A clinical priority criteria tool is a useful means of following changes in indications for certain procedures. It could also contribute to explaining differences in case mix when evaluating clinical outcome and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Swedish health care is regulated to involve the patient in every intervention process. In the area of post-operative pain, it is therefore important to evaluate patient experience of the quality of pain management. Previous research has focused on mapping this area but not on comparing experiences between acutely and electively admitted patients. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of post-operative pain management quality among acutely and electively admitted patients at a Swedish surgical department performing soft-tissue surgery. Methods A survey study design was used as a method based on a multidimensional instrument to assess post-operative pain management: Strategic and Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain Management ( SCQIPP). Consecutive patients at all wards of a university hospital's surgical department were included. Data collection was performed at hospital discharge. Results In total, 160 patients participated, of whom 40 patients were acutely admitted. A significant difference between acutely and electively admitted patients was observed in the SCQIPP area of environment, whereas acute patients rated the post-operative pain management quality lower compared with those who were electively admitted. Conclusions There may be a need for improvement in the areas of post-operative pain management in Sweden, both specifically and generally. There may also be a difference in the experience of post-operative pain quality between acutely and electively admitted patients in this study, specifically in the area of environment. In addition, low levels of the perceived quality of post-operative pain management among the patients were consistent, but satisfaction with analgesic treatment was rated as good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Evidence-based practice is becoming increasingly important in primary care physiotherapy. Clinical practice needs to reflect current best evidence and be concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. There is limited knowledge about therapeutic interventions used in primary care physiotherapy in Sweden. The objectives were to examine preferred treatment interventions reported by publicly employed physiotherapists in primary care for three common musculoskeletal disorders (low back pain, neck pain and subacromial pain), the extent to which these interventions were supported by evidence, and associations with demographic variables. Methods 419 physiotherapists in primary care in western Sweden were surveyed using a validated web-based questionnaire. Results The survey was completed by 271 respondents (65%). Median number of interventions reported was 7 (range 1-16). The most common treatment interventions across the three conditions were advice on posture (reported by 82-94%), advice to stay active (86-92%), and different types of exercise (65-92%). Most of these interventions were supported by evidence. However, interventions with insufficient evidence, such as advice on posture, TENS and aquatic exercise, were also used by 29-96%. Modalities such as laser therapy and ultrasound were sparingly used (<5%), which is in line with evidence. For neck pain, use of evidence-based interventions was associated with gender and for subacromial pain, with work experience. Conclusions Advice and exercise therapy were the interventions most frequently reported across the three diagnoses, illustrating an active treatment strategy. While most reported interventions are supported by evidence, interventions with unclear or no evidence of effect were also used to a high extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The previously developed Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire is intended for self-assessment of general recovery after surgery. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the questionnaire regarding the construct validity and ability to discriminate recovery profiles between groups. Furthermore, the item variables of greatest importance during the progress of recovery were investigated. Post-operative recovery was assessed during the period from discharge to 12 months after lower abdominal and orthopaedic surgery. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and a global recovery scale. Recovery profiles of the diagnose groups were displayed by the cumulative proportion recovered participants over time. The importance of item variables was investigated by ranking ordering. A total of 158 patients were included. Support was given for good construct validity. The result showed that 7.6% of all possible pairs were disordered when comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and the global recovery scale. Twelve months after discharge the PRP assessments discriminated significantly the recovery profiles of the abdominal and orthopaedic groups. The variable pain was one of the top five most important issues at each follow-up occasion in both study groups. The importance of the item variables was thereby emphasized. The PRP questionnaire allows for evaluation of the progress of post-operative recovery, and can be useful to assess patient-reported recovery after surgical treatment both on individual and group levels. Knowledge about recovery profiles can assist clinicians in determining the critical time points for measuring change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the extensive use of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs), including catheter-related complications, a reliable tool for PVC assessment is needed. The aim of this study was to develop such a tool to evaluate PVCs in relation to management, documentation and signs and symptoms of thrombophlebitis (TH), as well as to determine its inter-rater and test-retest reliability. The tool development included confirmation of content and face validity. Two groups of registered nurses used the new tool (PVC ) to assess PVC management and signs of TH independently. Group A ( n = 3) assessed 26 items in 67 PVCs bedside (inter-rater reliability). Group B ( n = 3) assessed photographs (67 PVCs, 21 items) of the same PVCs as those in Group A with a 4-week interval (test-retest reliability). Proportion of agreement P(A) and Cohen's kappa were calculated to evaluate inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Among nurses assessing PVCs at bedside, the P(A) was good to excellent (0.80-1) in 96% of the items in PVC . In 80% of the items kappa was substantial to almost perfect (0.61-1). TH sign erythema fell into the fair range (kappa = 0.40). In test-retest reliability analysis the P(A) was within the good and excellent range (0.80-1.0) and kappa varied from moderate to almost perfect (0.41-1.0) in 95% of the items. One item 'outer dressing is clean' was in fair range (0.21-0.40). The PVC instrument shows satisfactory inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Reliability tests on reviewing documentation remain to be performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]