Search

Purpose: To evaluate how well general practitioners (GPs) manage and respond to laboratory results for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD).Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, EBM reviews, ProQuest and Scopus.Study Selection: Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed GPs' management of laboratory results for patients with DM or CVD.Data Extraction: Study design and demographics, laboratory tests and key findings relating to GP management of laboratory results were extracted from studies.Results Of Data Synthesis: Thirteen articles were included, comprising seven studies which utilized surveys, four observational studies, one cohort study and one randomized controlled trial. Findings indicate that GPs often overestimate the risk of complications associated with DM and CVD based on laboratory results and have unrealistically high expectations regarding the precision of laboratory tests. Considerable variation existed in the use of repeat testing for diagnostic confirmation and in GPs' identification of the difference between two consecutive results required to indicate a change in patient condition. GPs also often failed to initiate appropriate treatment for patients with DM and CVD based on laboratory results. Feedback to GPs about their test ordering patterns and educational messages on laboratory results improved clinical outcomes.Conclusion: Evidence about how well GPs manage results and its impact on patient outcomes remains weak and inconclusive. This review identified a number of areas where interventions could support GPs to improve the interpretation and management of laboratory test results, including feedback to GPs and educational messages on test result reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community aged care in Australia is facing both challenges and opportunities with the introduction of consumer-directed care and its goal to provide clients with greater choice and control over their care services. Such policy changes impact not only aged care organisations, but front line staff who manage and deliver care. This study investigated the work of front line staff and their perceptions of the impact of a changing policy landscape. Focus groups were conducted with thirteen care workers and six case managers from one Australian aged care organisation. The data revealed valuable information about the: daily activities of front line staff; information exchange mechanisms facilitating front line work; management of clients and client relationships; and implications of policy and organisational changes on front line work and clients. Front line staff highlighted the importance of care coordination, communication and continuity of care delivery, all of which impact on client relationships and quality of care. For aged care organisations and policy makers, the findings identify important areas for consideration when making decisions about changes to community care, including the key role of front line staff in fostering client relationships, providing consistency and continuity, balancing the needs and expectations of clients, and providing support and advocacy of care options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]