Search

Background: Providing a timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia and delivering appropriate support following a diagnosis are essential to allow individuals and their families to plan for the future. Recent studies suggest that provision of diagnosis and post-diagnosis support is suboptimal. This study explored geriatricians' views about strategies to improve quality of care across these domains.Methods: An anonymous online survey of geriatricians and advanced trainees in one Australian state was conducted. An Expert Advisory Group of geriatricians, behavioural scientists and consumers proposed strategies to improve quality of care in relation to diagnosis and post-diagnosis support for people with dementia, which formed the survey items. Potential strategies were guided by, but not limited to, dementia and chronic care guidelines. Participants were asked the extent to which they agreed that implementing each of the proposed strategies would improve the quality of dementia care.Results: Of 59 participants (response rate 42%), all agreed that improving accessibility of geriatricians would improve the accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis. Over 90% were supportive of strategies to improve capacity of general practitioners to accurately diagnose dementia. Between 97-100% agreed that information provided following diagnosis should encompass symptom progression, treatments, psychological supports, and advance care planning. Just over two-thirds thought that life expectancy should be discussed at this time. There were high levels of support for strategies already included in existing dementia care guidelines, however geriatricians also agreed with a range of possible strategies not currently included in guidelines.Conclusions: Geriatricians perceive that timeliness and accuracy of dementia diagnosis may be improved by increasing access to geriatricians and training general practitioners in diagnosing dementia. They also believe it is appropriate to provide information at the time of diagnosis across a comprehensive range of areas, including potentially sensitive topics such as advance care planning. Future studies should explore the views of other groups of health care providers and consumers about these approaches. The strategies proposed should be considered for inclusion in future dementia care guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why. Methods: The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks. Results: Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to provide smoking cessation support to their patients in line with clinical practice guidelines, general practitioners must first ascertain whether their patients' use tobacco. This study examined (i) the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of general practitioner detection of smoking, and (ii) the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use. Methods: Eligible patients completed a touchscreen computer survey while waiting for an appointment with their general practitioner. Patients self-reported demographic characteristics, medical history, and current smoking status. Following the patient's consultation, their general practitioner was asked to indicate whether the patient was a current smoker (yes/no/unsure/not applicable). Smoking prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated using patient self-report of smoking status as the gold standard. Generalised estimating equations were used to examine the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use. Results: Fifty-one general practitioners and 1,573 patients in twelve general practices participated. Patient self-report of smoking was 11.3% compared to general practitioner estimated prevalence of 9.5%. Sensitivity of general practitioner assessment was 66% [95% CI 59-73] while specificity was 98% [95% CI 97-98]. Positive predictive value was 78% [95% CI 71-85] and negative predictive value was 96% [95% CI 95-97]. No general practitioner factors were associated with detection of smoking. Patients with a higher level of education or who responded ‘Other' were less likely to be detected as smokers than patients who had completed a high school or below level of education. Conclusion: Despite the important role general practitioners play in providing smoking cessation advice and support, a substantial proportion of general practitioners do not know their patient's smoking status. This represents a significant missed opportunity in the provision of preventive healthcare. Electronic waiting room assessments may assist general practitioners in improving the identification of smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research priority setting aims to gain consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society. While general principles for setting health research priorities have been suggested, there has been no critical review of the different approaches used. This review aims to: (i) examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities; (ii) identify barriers and facilitators to priority setting processes; and (iii) determine the outcomes of priority setting processes in relation to their objectives and impact on policy and practice. Medline, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1990 to March 2012. A review of grey literature was also conducted. Priority setting exercises that aimed to develop population health and health services research priorities conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, Europe and the UK were included. Two authors extracted data from identified studies. Eleven diverse priority setting exercises across a range of health areas were identified. Strategies including calls for submission, stakeholder surveys, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, focus groups, roundtables, the Nominal Group and Delphi technique were used to generate research priorities. Nine priority setting exercises used a core steering or advisory group to oversee and supervise the priority setting process. None of the models conducted a systematic assessment of the outcomes of the priority setting processes, or assessed the impact of the generated priorities on policy or practice. A number of barriers and facilitators to undertaking research priority setting were identified. The methods used to undertake research priority setting should be selected based upon the context of the priority setting process and time and resource constraints. Ideally, priority setting should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary advisory group, involve a broad representation of stakeholders, utilise objective and clearly defined criteria for generating priorities, and be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Primary care providers are an important source of information regarding appropriate alcohol consumption. As early presentation to a provider for alcohol-related concerns is unlikely, it is important that providers are able to identify at-risk patients in order to provide appropriate advice. This study aimed to report the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of General Practitioner (GP) assessment of alcohol consumption compared to patient self-report, and explore characteristics associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Method GP practices were selected from metropolitan and regional locations in Australia. Eligible patients were adults presenting for general practice care who were able to understand English and provide informed consent. Patients completed a modified AUDIT-C by touchscreen computer as part of an omnibus health survey while waiting for their appointment. GPs completed a checklist for each patient, including whether the patient met current Australian guidelines for at-risk alcohol consumption. Patient self-report and GP assessments were compared for each patient. Results GPs completed the checklist for 1720 patients, yielding 1565 comparisons regarding alcohol consumption. The sensitivity of GPs' detection of at-risk alcohol consumption was 26.5%, with specificity of 96.1%. Higher patient education was associated with GP non-detection of at-risk status. Conclusions GP awareness of which patients might benefit from advice regarding at-risk alcohol consumption appears low. Given the complexities associated with establishing whether alcohol consumption is 'at-risk', computer-based approaches to routine screening of patients are worthy of exploration as a method for prompting the provision of advice in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite controversy about the benefits of routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, rates of participation continue to rise. It is important to ensure that men are fully informed about the potential risks associated with this test. Little is known about the processes of shared decision making for PSA testing in the family practice setting. This study aimed to explore men's experiences of PSA testing participation and risk disclosure for PSA testing. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of male family practice attendees aged 40 years or older, with no previous history of prostate cancer, between June 2010 and November 2011. Questions related to whether participants had undertaken PSA testing or discussed this with their doctor over the past 5 years, whether the patient or doctor had initiated the discussion, reasons for undergoing testing, and whether their doctor had discussed particular risks associated with PSA testing Results: Sixty-seven percent (215/320) of men recalled having a PSA test in the past five years. Of the respondents who reported not having a test, 14% had discussed it with their doctor. The main reasons for having a PSA test were doctor recommendation and wanting to keep up to date with health tests. Thirty-eight percent or fewer respondents reported being advised of each potential risk. Conclusions: Despite debate over the benefits of routine PSA testing, a high proportion of male family practice attendees report undertaking this test. Risks associated with testing appear to be poorly disclosed by general practitioners. These results suggest the need to improve the quality of informed consent for PSA testing in the family practice setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]