Search

Rationale: Defensive caesarean section (CS) has become one of the most common medical procedure worldwide. Additionally, performing CS in accordance with the patient's choice is an appropriate professional practice. Aims and Objective: This paper reports a prospective, observational, multicenter study to quantify the use of this type of practice that is performed by obstetricians to avoid medico‐legal complaints and decrease the frequency of malpractice litigations. Methods: We interviewed 73 obstetricians from three distinct units of obstetrics and gynaecology, to assess their opinion regarding defensive caesarean delivery and caesarean delivery performed upon maternal request. We conducted an opinion‐based survey using questionnaires based on nine, close‐ended questions. Results: Out of 73 respondents, 51 (69.9%) stated that they perform defensive CS; 63 (86.3%) declared that their choice of birth delivery is influenced by the risk of being accused of malpractice; 60 (82.2%) indicated that it is normal for the patient to be able to decide on the type of delivery; and 63 (86.3%) declared that they consult their patients regarding their delivery preferences. We found statistically significant differences between the respondents who declare that they perform defensive CS (69.9%) and those who said that they are influenced by the risk of malpractice when they choose the method of delivery for their patients (86.3%) (P < .001; McNemar Test). Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that defensive caesarean section is a widespread practice among obstetrics practitioners in Romania. [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 Fibromyalgia ( FM) is challenging to diagnose, especially in primary care settings. The Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen was developed to facilitate the diagnosis of FM in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess the performance of the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen in primary care and specialty clinics, using the 1990 American College of Rheumatology ( ACR) diagnostic criteria as the gold standard, and comparing the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen with the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study Screening Questionnaire ( LFESSQ) and the modified 2010 ACR Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Criteria ( ACR-FDC). Methods This multicenter, cross-sectional study included 150 adult chronic pain patients who underwent a physician-administered structured history and physical exam and completed the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen, the LFESSQ and the modified ACR-FDC. The analyses determined the predictive ability of the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen for FM. Results Item-level analyses provided support for the response categories and predictive ability of most of the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen items. Additionally, the evaluation of the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen scoring models demonstrated the greatest accuracy in predicting an FM diagnosis with a combination of patient items and clinician items that included an abbreviated tender point exam (sensitivity 0.68, specificity, 0.82). Sensitivity of the modified ACR-FDC and the LFESSQ was 0.87 and 0.86, respectively, with specificity 0.62 and 0.49, respectively. Conclusions The Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Screen is a useful new clinical tool to aid in the evaluation of FM in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Self-efficacy - the confidence to carry out certain behaviour in order to achieve a specific goal - has increasingly been recognized as an essential prerequisite of effective self-management of chronic diseases. Therefore, valid and reliable measures are needed to evaluate self-efficacy in both research and clinical practice. This study explored the psychometric properties of the German version of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SES6G). Methods We performed standardized translation and cultural adaptation of the SES6G into German. The SES6G was externally validated with the German General Self-Efficacy Scale (SWE). Cronbach's alpha, descriptive statistics and principal component analysis were used to assess psychometric properties of the SES6G. We assessed the effect of the number of co-occurring chronic diseases on SES6G scores using linear regression modelling by controlling for age, gender and education level. Results We analysed data of 244 primary care patients in Germany. The SES6G showed good convergent construct validity to the SWE (spearman rank correlation 0.578, P < 0.001) and high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.930). Principal component analysis underlined the one-dimensional structure of the instrument. Adjusted for age and gender, increasing numbers of co-occurring chronic diseases were associated with lower SES6G scores (standardized β-value −0.27, P < 0.001). Education level showed no significant effect. Conclusions The SES6G is a reliable and valid instrument to assess patients' self-efficacy for managing chronic diseases. It may enhance further research in German-speaking countries and appears to be a valuable measure for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rational, aims and objective The aim of the present study was to compare the ease of use and the capability of four approaches [Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), the Beers' criteria 2003, the Improved Prescribing in the Elderly Tool (IPET) and Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS)] in assessing changes in medication appropriateness in elderly patients over a period of hospitalization. Methods A retrospective observational study in two hospitals in Northern Ireland using the four measures was undertaken, involving a cohort of 192 patients (aged > 65 years). Medication appropriateness assessments were made at three stages during the patients' hospital 'journey', that is, at admission, during their inpatient stay and at discharge. The identifying rates of inappropriate prescribing in elderly patients in hospital used validated screening tools: MAI, the Beers' criteria 2003, the IPET and HEDIS. Results The MAI was the most comprehensive approach but was also the most time consuming to apply. Data derived using the MAI indicated clearly that there was improved medication appropriateness over the three hospital stay stages ( P < 0.001). Although this trend was also significant for the Beers' criteria 2003 ( P < 0.05) and the IPET ( P < 0.05) approaches, the HEDIS was unable to differentiate changes in appropriateness over time. There was a good correlation between data derived using the MAI and the Beers' criteria 2003 and the IPET approaches; this correlation was not evident for the HEDIS. Conclusions The MAI is the most convincing tool in evaluating medication appropriateness, but is very time consuming to apply. Beers' criteria 2003 and the IPET perform to an acceptable standard within the clinical setting and are more practical in their application. The HEDIS, although simplest to apply, does not have the sensitivity to measure change in appropriateness over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Previous service development work in the area of integrated medicines management (IMM) has demonstrated clear quality improvements in a targeted group of patients within a hospital in Northern Ireland. In order to determine whether this programme could be transferable to routine practice and thereby assess its generalizability, research has been carried out to quantify the health care benefits of incorporating the concept of IMM as routine clinical practice. Method The IMM programme of care was delivered to all eligible patients (subject to inclusion criteria) across two hospital sites in Northern Ireland during normal pharmacy opening hours. All patients were followed up for a period of 12 months from their time of hospital admission. All patient data were collected using the custom-designed Electronic Pharmacist Intervention Clinical System at each stage of their hospital journey, that is, admission, inpatient stay and discharge. Results Patients who received the IMM service benefited from a reduced length of hospital stay on their reference admission (1.42 days; P = 0.020) as well as a reduced length of stay during the first rehospitalization (5.86 days; P = 0.013). There was also a trend of a reduced number of readmissions and a longer time to readmission during the 12-month follow-up period. Potential significant opportunity cost savings were demonstrated as well as a significant improvement in medication appropriateness (discharge vs. reference admission). Conclusions The IMM programme of care has proven to be transferable to routine hospital care within two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that this current research will further inform the development of IMM as routine clinical practice across Northern Ireland and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many women are prescribed oestrogen-containing contraceptives for whom oestrogen-containing methods may be less suitable. Two surveys examining contraceptive prescription practices among doctors ( n = 419) and attitudes towards contraception among women ( n = 1623) in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Russia were evaluated. Progestin-only pills and hormone-free intrauterine devices were the most commonly prescribed contraceptives for women with medical conditions for which oestrogen-containing methods are not preferred (40% and 20%, respectively), those suffering from oestrogen-related side effects (32% and 21%) and those with concerns about the safety of oestrogen-containing methods (28% and 24%). Combined oral contraceptives (COC) were prescribed to ≥10% in these two groups. One-quarter of contraceptive users had asked to be switched from one COC to another because of oestrogen-related side effects; a similar proportion had been switched by their doctor for this reason. Half of the women surveyed did not want or had concerns about foreign/additional oestrogen, and about 80% said that they would consider switching to a different hormonal contraceptive to minimize oestrogen exposure. Although most doctors were aware of the World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, they still prescribed COCs or other oestrogen-containing contraceptives to women with medical conditions for which oestrogen-containing options are not favoured, suggesting a need for additional education. By complying with guidelines and heeding women's concerns, doctors can individualize their contraceptive recommendation to improve safety, acceptance and compliance and, ultimately, reduce the risk of an unintended pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strategies to improve primary care in the Canadian Primary Care Reform include integrating different professionals to the medical team. This demonstration project explores the perceived impact on doctors and patients, of having family doctors and psychologists work together. Two family practices of Eastern Ontario, Canada Two board certified psychologists (one per practice) were integrated in the practices for 12 months. Psychologists conducted assessments, consultations and short-term treatments, as well as knowledge-transfer sessions for doctors. Outcome measures included referral patterns, patient outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction as well as doctors' billing. Three hundred and seventy-six participants received psychological care; most were women (68%) and between the ages of 25-64 (67%). Anxiety and depression were the most prevalent diagnoses. Reasons for referral included: psychological treatment (70%); emotional support and counselling (35%); clarification of diagnosis and case conceptualization (25%). Referrals could be for more than one reason. After intervention, 60% of patients had improvement on the outcome questionnaire-45 (OQ-45). Quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5D also improved ( P < 0.001). Over 77% of patients reported increased confidence in handling their problems after treatment. Compared with their family doctor, patients felt the psychologist had more time and was better trained (75%) Doctors felt mental health problems were diagnosed more rapidly, patient care improved as well as their own knowledge of psychological management and treatment. Doctors felt it freed up their time and improved working conditions. Audit of the doctors' billing showed reduction in doctors' mental health billing. Having an on-site psychologist was highly satisfactory for patients and providers, resulting in improved patient care and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variability in indications for total hip replacement (THR) and unequal waiting times may limit health care access. To analyse the relationship between appropriateness and previously developed surgical priority instruments. Multicentre cross-validation study of patients placed on the waiting list for THR. Information on surgical priority, surgeons' evaluation of priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Health Utilities Index mark 3, EQ-5D, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritic Index) was collected. THR indications were considered appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate according to appropriateness criteria. Statistical differences and clinically important differences in surgical priority, VAS and HRQOL between appropriateness categories were analysed with the Mann-Whitney U-test and effect size (ES), respectively. Surgical priority score's ability to discriminate appropriate and inappropriate indications was evaluated through the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). 49.4% (87) of the THR indications were deemed appropriate, 39.8% (70) uncertain and 10.8% (19) inappropriate. Differences in surgical priority score, VAS and HRQOL between appropriateness categories were statistically significant. Clinically important differences were generally small (ES, 0.2-0.5) between inappropriate and uncertain, moderate (ES, 0.5-0.8) between uncertain and appropriate, and large (ES > 0.8) between inappropriate and appropriate categories. The AUC to discriminate appropriate and inappropriate indications was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83-0.97), respectively. The relationship between the surgical priority and appropriateness instruments reinforces their validity and could improve waiting list management by establishing maximum waiting periods based on patients' characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent trend in health care system is to provide more choices to the patients. This study surveyed the general public's choices for primary care in Hong Kong which has the setting of free choices for private or public service and also direct access to specialists. We used a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. We held five focus group interviews with participants of different socio-economic categories. Information from the focus groups helped to design a questionnaire for random telephone interviews with members of the public aged 18 or above. There were 37 participants in the focus groups and 1647 respondents in the telephone survey. The most important factor for choosing a doctor was proximity to home or workplace, followed by quick relief from the illness. Once continuity of care had been established, distance was of less importance but comprehensive care was valued. Nearly 70% of the public had regular doctors. About 93% of the public would consult specialists directly when they thought they needed a specialist's opinion. Nearly 30% chose specialists for any medical care and 38% preferred specialists to also look after their primary care problems. Convenient accessibility was the most important factor for the initial choice of primary care doctors by the general public. The perceived clinical proficiency of the doctor determined future continuity of care. Patients liked to have direct access to specialists. Though some chose to see the specialists even for primary care problems, most people had regular doctors who were likely to have the attributes of family doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]