Search

Abstract Background Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a leading cause of disability, hospitalization, and premature mortality. General practice is well placed to diagnose and manage COPD, but there is a significant gap between evidence and current practice, with a low level of awareness and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Under-diagnosis of COPD is a world-wide problem, limiting the benefit that could potentially be achieved through early intervention strategies such as smoking cessation, dietary advice, and exercise. General practice is moving towards more structured chronic disease management, and the increasing involvement of practice nurses in delivering chronic care. Design A pragmatic cluster randomised trial will test the hypothesis that intervention by a practice nurse-general practitioner (GP) team leads to improved health-related quality of life and greater adherence with clinical practice guidelines for patients with newly-diagnosed COPD, compared with usual care. Forty general practices in greater metropolitan Sydney Australia will be recruited to identify patients at risk of COPD and invite them to attend a case finding appointment. Practices will be randomised to deliver either practice nurse-GP partnership care, or usual care, to patients newly-diagnosed with COPD. The active intervention will involve the practice nurse and GP working in partnership with the patient in developing and implementing a care plan involving (as appropriate), smoking cessation, immunisation, pulmonary rehabilitation, medication review, assessment and correction of inhaler technique, nutritional advice, management of psycho-social issues, patient education, and management of co-morbidities. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life, assessed with the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures include validated disease-specific and general health related quality of life measures, smoking and immunisation status, medications, inhaler technique, and lung function. Outcomes will be assessed by project officers blinded to patients’ randomization groups. Discussion This study will use proven case-finding methods to identify patients with undiagnosed COPD in general practice, where improved care has the potential for substantial benefit in health and healthcare utilization. The study provides the capacity to trial a new model of team-based assessment and management of newly diagnosed COPD in Australian primary care. Trial registration ACTRN12610000592044

Abstract Background Quality care of type 2 diabetes is complex and requires systematic use of clinical data to monitor care processes and outcomes. An electronic decision support (EDS) tool for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care was developed by the Australian Pharmaceutical Alliance. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate the uptake and use of the EDS tool as well as to describe the impact of the EDS tool on the primary care consultation for diabetes from the perspectives of general practitioners and practice nurses. Methods This was a qualitative study of telephone interviews. General Practitioners and Practice Nurses from four Divisions of General Practice who had used the EDS tool for a minimum of six weeks were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the interview transcripts were coded and thematically analysed using NVivo 8 software. Results In total 15 General Practitioners and 2 Practice Nurses completed the interviews. The most commonly used feature of the EDS tool was the summary side bar; its major function was to provide an overview of clinical information and a prompt or reminder to diabetes care. It also assisted communication and served an educational role as a visual aide in the consultation. Some participants thought the tool resulted in longer consultations. There were a range of barriers to use related to the design and functionality of the tool and to the primary care context. Conclusions The EDS tool shows promise as a way of summarising information about patients’ diabetes state, reminder of required diabetes care and an aide to patient education.

Abstract Background General practitioners (GPs) are ideally placed to bridge the widely noted evidence-practice gap between current management of NVAF and the need to increase anticoagulant use to reduce the risk of fatal and disabling stroke in NVAF. We aimed to identify gaps in current care, and asked GPs to identify potentially useful strategies to overcome barriers to best practice. Methods We obtained contact details for a random sample of 1000 GPs from a national commercial data-base. Randomly selected GPs were mailed a questionnaire after an advance letter. Standardised reminders were administered to enhance response rates. As part of a larger survey assessing GP management of NVAF, we included questions to explore GPs' risk assessment, estimates of stroke risk and GPs' perceptions of the risks and benefits of anticoagulation with warfarin. In addition, we explored GPs' perceived barriers to the wider uptake of anticoagulation, quality control of anticoagulation and their assessment of strategies to assist in managing NVAF. Results 596 out of 924 eligible GPs responded (64.4% response rate). The majority of GPs recognised that the benefits of warfarin outweighed the risks for three case scenarios in which warfarin is recommended according to Australian guidelines. In response to a hypothetical case scenario describing a patient with a supratherapeutic INR level of 5, 41.4% of the 596 GPs (n = 247) and 22.0% (n = 131) would be "highly likely" or "likely", respectively, to cease warfarin therapy and resume at a lower dose when INR levels are within therapeutic range. Only 27.9% (n = 166/596) would reassess the patient's INR levels within one day of recording the supratherapeutic INR. Patient contraindications to warfarin was reported to "usually" or "always" apply to the patients of 40.6% (n = 242/596) of GPs when considering whether or not to prescribe warfarin. Patient refusal to take warfarin "usually" or "always" applied to the patients of 22.3% (n = 133/596) of GPs. When asked to indicate the usefulness of strategies to assist in managing NVAF, the majority of GPs (89.1%, n = 531/596) reported that they would find patient educational resources outlining the benefits and risks of available treatments "quite useful" or "very useful". Just under two-thirds (65.2%; n = 389/596) reported that they would find point of care INR testing "quite" or "very" useful. An outreach specialist service and training to enable GPs to practice stroke medicine as a special interest were also considered to be "quite" or "very useful" by 61.9% (n = 369/596) GPs. Conclusion This survey identified gaps, based on GP self-report, in the current care of NVAF. GPs themselves have provided guidance on the selection of implementation strategies to bridge these gaps. These results may inform future initiatives designed to reduce the risk of fatal and disabling stroke in NVAF.

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly diagnosed and managed in primary care but there is evidence that this has been suboptimal, with low confidence expressed in providing interventions requiring behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a general practitioner (GP)–physiotherapist partnership in the diagnosis and management of COPD in primary care and to explore the experiences of participants during the implementation of the model. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists (n = 3), GPs (n = 2), practice nurses (PNs) (n = 2) and patients (n = 12) who had participated in the InNovaTivE Gp‐physiotheRapist pArTnErship for copD (INTEGRATED) trial. We sought to explore participants' views about their experiences and perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this model of care. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. Synthesis of the data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework for clinician interviews and the health belief model for patient interviews. Results: All clinicians felt that this integrated model helped to optimise care for patients with COPD by facilitating evidence‐based practice. GPs and PNs valued the physiotherapist's knowledge and skills relating to diagnosis and management, which was reported to complement their own management and improve patient outcomes. Patients reported a sense of empowerment following their appointments and acknowledged improved self‐management skills. However, physiotherapists reported many patients were already engaging in positive health behaviours. Responses were mixed on the effectiveness of the model in facilitating teamwork between clinicians with different perspectives concerning management, communication pathways and logistical issues, such as time and room availability, being cited as barriers. Conclusions: An experienced cardiorespiratory physiotherapist embedded into a small number of primary care practices to work in partnership with GPs for COPD diagnosis and management was acceptable and viewed as beneficial for patients. Barriers relating to logistics and resources remain, which must be addressed to optimise implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient input was obtained from qualitative feedback from a prior study conducted by two authors and was used to refine the model of care to determine the added value of a physiotherapist integrated into the primary care team. This feedback was also used to refine the interview guides utilised in this study determine the acceptability of this model of care. We had health service involvement from the rehabilitation service of the local health district who were directly involved in determining study aims and establishing the project around the priorities for their chronic disease integration service. For example, this project aimed to engage with a less severe patient population in primary care who would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation. The findings from this study will be used to further tailor the model of care to the needs of the public and patients. Trial Registration: ACTRN12619001127190 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPeople with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often experience mental health symptoms that exacerbate illness and increase mortality risk. Access to psychological support is low in people with T2DM. Detection of depression is variable in primary care and can be further hampered by mental health stigma. Electronic mental health (eMH) programs may provide an accessible, private, nonstigmatizing mental health solution for this group. ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy over 12 months of follow-up of an eMH program (myCompass) for improving social and occupational functioning in a community sample of people with T2DM and self-reported mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms. myCompass is a fully automated and self-guided web-based public health program for people with depression or anxiety. The effects of myCompass on depressive symptoms, diabetes-related distress, anxiety symptoms, and self-care behavior were also examined. MethodsAdults with T2DM and mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms (N=780) were recruited via online advertisements, community organizations, and general practices. Screening, consent, and self-report questionnaires were administered online. Eligible participants were randomized to receive either myCompass (n=391) or an attention control generic health literacy program (Healthy Lifestyles; n=379) for 8 weeks. At baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention, participants completed the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item, the Diabetes Distress Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-7 item, and items from the Self-Management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes. Glycosylated hemoglobin measurements were obtained at baseline and 6 and 12 months postintervention. ResultsA total of 38.9% (304/780) of the trial participants completed all postintervention assessments. myCompass users logged in on an average of 6 times and completed an average of 0.29 modules. Healthy Lifestyles users logged in on an average of 4 times and completed an average of 1.37 modules. At baseline, the mean scores on several outcome measures, including the primary outcome of work and social functioning, were close to the normal range, despite a varied and extensive recruitment process. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed slightly greater improvement at 12 months in work and social functioning for the Healthy Lifestyles group relative to the myCompass group. All participants reported equivalent improvements in depression anxiety, diabetes distress, diabetes self-management, and glycemic control across the trial. ConclusionsThe Healthy Lifestyles group reported higher ratings of social and occupational functioning than the myCompass group, but no differences were observed for any secondary outcome. Although these findings should be interpreted in light of the near-floor symptom scores at baseline, the trial yields important insights into how people with T2DM might be engaged in eMH programs and the challenges of focusing specifically on mental health. Several avenues emerge for continued investigation into how best to deal with the growing mental health burden in adults with T2DM. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN) 12615000931572; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368109&isReview=true

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and health costs of a new primary care service delivery model (the Optimising Primary Care Management of Knee Osteoarthritis [PARTNER] model) to improve health outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to usual care. Methods: This study was a 2‐arm, cluster, superiority, randomized controlled trial with randomization at the general practice level, undertaken in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. We aimed to recruit 44 practices and 572 patients age ≥45 years with knee pain for >3 months. Professional development opportunities on best practice OA care were provided to intervention group general practitioners (GPs). All recruited patients had an initial GP visit to confirm knee OA diagnosis. Control patients continued usual GP care, and intervention patients were referred to a centralized care support team (CST) for 12‐months. Via telehealth, the CST provided OA education and an agreed OA action plan focused on muscle strengthening, physical activity, and weight management. Primary outcomes were patient self‐reported change in knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale [range 0–10; higher score = worse]) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale [range 0–100; higher score = better] at 12 months. Health care cost outcomes included costs of medical visits and prescription medications over the 12‐month period. Results: Recruitment targets were not reached. A total of 38 practices and 217 patients were recruited. The intervention improved pain by 0.8 of 10 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.2, 1.4) and function by 6.5 of 100 points (95% CI 2.3, 10.7), more than usual care at 12 months. Total costs of medical visits and prescriptions were $3,940 (Australian) for the intervention group versus $4,161 for usual care. This difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The PARTNER model improved knee pain and function more than usual GP care. The magnitude of improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful for pain but is uncertain for function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]