Search

Aims: To describe clinic management and referral pathways among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged > 25 years attending a public outpatient diabetes service. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of people with T1D aged > 25 years seen by endocrinologists in one Australian urban public outpatient in 2017. Electronic and paper medical records were reviewed using a dataset adapted from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2015 guidelines. Results: Among the 111 people with T1D (mean age 41 ± 13 years, 55% men, mean body mass index 27.1 ± 5.6 kg/m2), mean HbA1c was 8.1 ± 1.9% (66 ± 19 mmol/mol) (lower than the Australian National Diabetes Audit: 8.5%/69 mmol/mol) with 25.5% meeting the guideline target of < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%). Most people had seen a diabetes educator (80.2%) or dietitian (73.0%) and had complication screening. Complication rates were high (nephropathy 20.4%, retinopathy 27.4%, peripheral neuropathy 30.1%, ischaemic heart disease/acute infarction 10.5%). Overall, 27% of referrals occurred following an acute inpatient admission or emergency department presentation and 13% for management of diabetes in pregnancy. Conclusions: A high proportion of people with T1D accessed public specialist care either during pregnancy or after a largely avoidable acute glycaemia-related hospital presentation. Subsequent care was in line with national specialist standards. This area has a "wait for acute event" rather than "complication prevention" model of care, associated with under-referral to the local multidisciplinary specialist service. Understanding how widespread this model of care is, and ways to reduce its prevalence, are urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Managing diagnostic uncertainty is a major challenge in primary care due to factors such as the absence of definitive tests, variable symptom presentations and disease evolution. Maintaining patient trust during a period of investigative uncertainty, whilst minimising scope for diagnostic error is a challenge. Mismanagement can lead to diagnostic errors, treatment delays, and suboptimal patient outcomes. Objective: Our aim was to explore how UK primary care physicians (GPs) address and communicate diagnostic uncertainty in practice. Design: This qualitative study used video and audio-recordings. Verbatim transcripts were coded with a modified, validated tool to capture GPs' actions and communication in primary care consultations that included diagnostic uncertainty. The tool includes items relating to advice regarding new symptoms or symptom deterioration (sometimes called 'safety netting'). Video data was analysed to identify GP and patient body postures during and after the delivery of the management plan. Participants: All patient participants had a consultation with a GP, were over the age of 50 and had (1) at least one new presenting problem or (2) one persistent problem that was undiagnosed. Approach: Data collection occurred in GP-patient consultations during 2017–2018 across 7 practices in UK during 2017–2018. Key results: GPs used various management strategies to address diagnostic uncertainty, including (1) symptom monitoring without treatment, (2) prescribed treatment with symptom monitoring, and (3) addressing risks that could arise from administrative tasks. GPs did not make management plans for potential treatment side effects. Specificity of uncertainty management plans varied among GPs, with only some offering detailed actions and timescales. The transfer of responsibility for the management plan to patients was usually delivered rather than negotiated, with most patients confirming acceptance before concluding the discussion. Conclusions: We offer guidance to healthcare professionals, improving awareness of using and communicating management plans for diagnostic uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reducing unplanned hospital admissions is a key priority within the UK and other healthcare systems, however it remains uncertain how this can be achieved. This paper explores the relationship between unplanned ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) admission rates and population, general practice and hospital characteristics. Additionally, we investigated if these factors had a differential impact across 28 conditions. Methods: We used the English Hospital Episode Statistics to calculate the number of unplanned ACSC hospital admissions for 28 conditions at 8,029 general practices during 2011/12. We used multilevel negative binomial regression to estimate the influence of population (deprivation), general practice (size, access, continuity, quality, A&E proximity) and hospital (bed availability, % day cases) characteristics on unplanned admission rates after adjusting for age, sex and chronic disease prevalence. Results: Practices in deprived areas (at the 90th centile) had 16% (95% confidence interval: 14 to 18) higher admission rates than those in affluent areas (10th centile). Practices with poorer care continuity (9%; 8 to 11), located closest to A&E (8%; 6 to 9), situated in areas with high inpatient bed availability (14%; 10 to 18) or in areas with a larger proportion of day case admissions (17%; 12 to 21) had more admissions. There were smaller associations for primary care access, clinical quality, and practice size. The strength of associations varied by ACSC. For example, deprivation was most strongly associated with alcohol related diseases and COPD admission rates, while continuity of primary care was most strongly associated with admission rates for chronic diseases such as hypertension and iron-deficiency anaemia. Conclusions: The drivers of unplanned ACSC admission rates are complex and include population, practice and hospital factors. The importance of these varies markedly across conditions suggesting that multifaceted interventions are required to avoid hospital admissions and reduce costs. Several of the most important drivers of admissions are largely beyond the control of GPs. However, strategies to improve primary care continuity and avoid unnecessary short-stay admissions could lead to improved efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childhood bullying is a major risk factor for health, education and social relationships, with effects persisting into adulthood. It affects half of all children at some point, with 10-14 % experiencing bullying that lasts for years. With the advent of cyberbullying, it can happen at all times and places. There have been calls for GPs to take a more active role in identifying and supporting young people who are being bullied. This paper explores young people's and parents' opinions about whether general practice should be involved in identifying and supporting young people who are being bullied. Methods: Two hundred six young people (85.9 % female, mean ± sd age 16.2 ± 3.2 years) and 44 parents were recruited through established bullying charity websites and their social media channels to complete an online questionnaire comprising multiple-choice questions and unlimited narrative responses. Questionnaire responses were analysed by age and gender using descriptive statistics. A descriptive analysis of the narrative responses was undertaken and key themes identified. Results: Young people (90.8 %) and parents (88.7 %) thought it was important for GPs to be better able to recognise and help young people who are being bullied. Most recognised the link between bullying and health. The doctor's independence was seen as advantageous. Young people preferred completing a screening questionnaire to disclose experience of being bullied than being asked directly. They expressed concerns about how questions would be asked and whether information would be shared with parents/guardians. Parents were supportive of the use of a screening questionnaire, and most expected their child's disclosure to be shared with them. Conclusion: Young people and parents recruited through anti-bullying websites and social media would welcome greater GP involvement in identifying and supporting young people who are being bullied and their families, provided it is offered in a caring, compassionate and confidential manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]