Search

Background Over 50% of treated patients with asthma in Europe are not well controlled. Their management in primary health care (PHC) differs from that in specialized care, and there is no real coordination between the two. Objectives To identify barriers and solutions to improving the management of patients with severe and poorly controlled asthma and the communication between specialists and PHC, and to reach a consensus on the criteria for referral patients. Methods An observational study using a modified Delphi technique. About 79 physicians from PHC, pneumology and allergy fields from different Spanish regions were invited to participate via an online questionnaire. Consensus was reached on an item when more than two-thirds of the panel members scored within the 3-point category (1-3 or 7-9) containing the median and the interquartile range of answers had to be ≤4 points. Results Response rate: 52%. After the second round, consensus items were 40 (62.5%): of which 37 in agreement and 3 in disagreement. Around 92.68% of respondents agreed that it would be useful to incorporate questionnaires for asthma control into PHC computer-based searches. About 100% of participants agreed that clear consensus criteria between PHC and specialists must be determined to decide when a patient with asthma is referred from PHC to specialist or vice versa. Ten of the proposed criteria reached consensus agreement. Conclusion The failure to use guidelines and specific questionnaires for asthma control in PHC is one reason why there is underdiagnosis and poor control of asthma. Some strategies to improve the asthma care management emerged from the survey results.

To analyse the frequency of mistakes in communication between the physician and the patient and their incidence in errors in self-administered drugs.We undertook a descriptive, cross-sectional study based on interviews with a random sample of patients older than 65 years who were polymedicated (five or more drugs) and had multiple comorbidities. Data were analysed about the patients' reports of what the physician said, medication mistakes by the patients and their consequences.Responses were provided by 382 patients. A medication error in the last year was reported by 287 patients (75%), and 16 patients (4%) reported four or more errors. Most cases concerned the dosage, a similar appearance of the medication or a lack of understanding of the physician's instructions. Very severe consequences occurred in 19 cases (5%). Multiple comorbidities (P = 0.006) and a greater number of treatments (P = 0.002) were associated with making mistakes. Frequent changes in prescription (P = 0.02), not considering the prescriptions of other physicians (P = 0.01), inconsistency in the messages (P = 0.01), being treated by various different physicians at the same time (P = 0.03), a feeling of not being listened to (P0.001) or loss of trust in the physician (P0.001) were associated with making medication mistakes.Mistakes by polymedicated patients with multiple comorbidities represent a real risk that should be addressed by the professionals. A review should be made of the routine control questions that the physician asks the patient to identify what other drugs the patient may be taking that have been indicated by another physician.

Objective. To assess the barriers that make it difficult for the health care professionals (physicians, nurses and health care managers) to achieve a better control for dyslipidemia in Spain. Methods. The study has an observational design and was performed using the modified Delphi technique. One hundred and forty-nine panel members from medicine, nursing and health care management fields and from different Spanish regions were selected randomly and were invited to participate. Individual and anonymous opinions were asked by answering a 42-items questionnaire via e-mail (two rounds were done). Level of agreement was assessed using measures of central tendency and dispersion. We analysed commonalities/differences between the three groups (Kappa index and McNemar chi-square). Results. Response rate: 81%. The agreement index was 33.3 (95% CI: 18.9-47.7). Regarding the non-compliance with therapy, it improves with patient education degree in dyslipidemia, patient motivation, the agreement on decisions with the patient and with the use of cardiovascular risk measure and it gets worse with lack of information on the objectives to achieve. Clinical inertia improves with professional's motivation, cardiovascular risk calculation, training on objectives and the use of indicators and it gets worse with lack of treatment goals. Conclusion. Different perceptions and attitudes between medicine, nursing and health care management were found. An agreement in interventions in non-compliance and clinical inertia to improve dyslipidemia control was reached.