Search

Background: To investigate what a geriatric assessment in general practice adds towards previous findings of prevalence, location, impact and the dyadic doctor-patient perception of pain in this age group., Methods: Cross-sectional study. Consecutive patients aged 70 and over underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment in general practice that included a basic pain assessment (severity, sites and impact). Patients with pain and their doctors then independently rated its importance. Pain was correlated with further findings from the assessment, such as overall health, physical impairments, everyday function, falls, mood, health related lifestyle, social circumstances, using bivariate and multivariate statistics. Patient-doctor agreement on the importance of pain was calculated using kappa statistics., Results: 219 out of 297 patients (73.7 %) reported pain at any location. Pain was generally located at multiple sites. It was most often present at the knee (33.9%), the lumbar spine (33.5%) as well as the hip (13.8%) and correlated with specific impairments such as restrictions of daily living (knee) or sleep problems (spine). Patients with pain and their physicians poorly agreed on the importance of the pain problem., Conclusions: A basic pain assessment can identify older patients with pain in general practice. It has resulted in a high prevalence exceeding that determined by encounters in consultations. It has been shown that a geriatric assessment provides an opportunity to address pain in a way that is adapted to older patients' needs - addressing all sites, its specific impact on life, and the patients' perceived importance of pain. Since there is little doctor-patient agreement, this seems a valuable strategy to optimize concrete treatment decisions and patient centered care., Trial Registration: This study is registered in the German Clinical Trial Register ( DRKS00000792 ).

Background: Geriatric assessments are established tools in institutional care since they enable standardized detection of relevant age-related disorders. Geriatric assessments could also be helpful in general practice. However, they are infrequently used in this setting, mainly due to their lengthy administration. The aim of the study was the development of a "manageable geriatric assessment--MAGIC", specially tailored to the requirements of daily primary care., Methods: MAGIC was developed based on the comprehensive Standardized Assessment for Elderly People in Primary Care (STEP), using four different methodological approaches: We relied on A) the results of the PRISCUS study by assessing the prevalence of health problems uncovered by STEP, the importance of the respective problems rated by patients and general practitioners, as well as the treatment procedures initiated subsequently to the assessment. Moreover, we included findings of B) a literature analysis C) a review of the STEP assessment by experienced general practitioners and D) focus groups with general practitioners., Results: The newly created MAGIC assessment consists of 9 items and covers typical geriatric health problems and syndromes: function, falls, incontinence, cognitive impairment, impaired ears and eyes, vaccine coverage, emotional instability and isolation., Conclusions: MAGIC promises to be a helpful screening instrument in primary care consultations involving elderly multimorbid patients. Applicable within a minimum of time it still covers health problems highly relevant with regard to a potential loss of autonomy. Feasibility will be tested in the context of a large, still ongoing randomized controlled trial on "reduction of potentially inadequate medication in elderly patients" (RIME study; DRKS-ID: DRKS00003610) in general practice.

Objective: To examine to what extent general practitioners in consultations after a geriatric assessment set shared health priorities with older patients experiencing multimorbidity and to what extent this was facilitated through patient-centered behavior., Methods: Observation of consultations embedded in a cluster randomized controlled trial,(1) in which 317 patients from 41 general practices received the STEP assessment followed by a care planning consultation with their GPs. GPs in the intervention group used a structured procedure for setting health (care) priorities in contrast to control GPs. A sample of 43 consultations (24 intervention; 19 control) were recorded, transcribed and analyzed with regard to priority setting and patient-centeredness., Results: Patient-centeredness was only moderately apparent in consultations dealing with complex care plans for older patients with multimorbidity. The shared determination of health priorities seemed unusual for both doctors and patients and was rarely practiced, albeit more frequently in intervention consultations., Conclusion: Setting health care priorities with patients experiencing multimorbidity is ethically desirable and medically appropriate. Yet a short structured guide for doctors cannot easily achieve this., Practice Implications: More research is needed in regard to handling complex health needs of older patients. It requires a professional approach and training in patient-centered holistic care planning., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance and use of a basic geriatric assessment (BGA), as it is covered by the German pay system, in primary care practices., Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews and collected quantitative data by an online questionnaire., Results: A total of 17 (10 men) general practitioners (GPs) agreed to be interviewed; 161 patients (134 men) completed the online questionnaire. GPs mainly performed BGA to substantiate the suspicion of cognitive impairment. Most of the German general practices accomplished not more than 5-10 BGA per quarter. Although those GPs who conducted BGA were convinced of its usefulness with regard to further patient care, concrete interventions were rarely named. The tests used within the BGA were not always in line with recommendations from the specific guidelines. The main reasons not to conduct BGA were the amount of time required and the lack of therapeutic consequences., Conclusion: Hitherto BGA is not an established tool in German primary care practices. The question, which single instruments are most suitable for older general practice patients, still needs clarification.

Background: General Practitioners (GPs) often have to simultaneously tackle multiple health problems of older patients. A patient-centred process that engages the patient in setting health priorities for treatment is needed. We investigated whether a structured priority-setting consultation reconciles the often-differing doctor-patient views on the importance of problems., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with 40 GPs and their 317 consecutively recruited older patients., Procedure: Following a geriatric assessment, patients and doctors independently rated the importance of each uncovered problem. GPs then selected priorities with their patients in a consultation. Trained intervention GPs held a structured consultation and utilised the list of uncovered patient problems with their importance ratings to agree priorities. Untrained control GPs only used the patient's problem list without importance ratings., Main Outcome: Doctor-patient agreement on independent importance ratings two weeks after the priority-setting consultation., Analysis: Weighted kappa (κw) and multilevel logistic regression model., Results: Intervention GPs and their patients determined mutual priorities for 20% of individual problems. In this process, GPs often succeeded in convincing their patients of the importance of vaccinations, lifestyle and cognitive issues. Likewise, patients convinced their GPs to prioritise their social and functional problems. Further treatment plans ensued in 84% of these priority areas. The regression model adjusting for clusters and baseline characteristics did not demonstrate significant differences in doctor-patient agreement on problems between groups a two weeks later., Conclusion: Differing views on the importance of health problems between GPs and older patients were not sustainably reconciled. The special consultation facilitated identification of priority problems for treatment despite differences in perceived importance of problems between patients and GPs. German clinical trials register drks 00000792.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) deal with the multiple health needs of older patients. During patient encounters GPs are often only able to manage a limited number of problems and tend to focus on single diseases resulting in fragmented and overloaded care. A systematic approach that considers multiple health problems simultaneously and sets priorities for treatment is necessary., Aim: To disclose patients' and doctors' perspectives on individual health and treatment priorities., Methods: Cross-sectional study in which 123 older patients and their 11 GPs evaluated the importance and severity of patients' individual health problems. Patients were systematically enrolled to receive a geriatric assessment. This generated a problem list on the basis of which patients and their GPs independently rated the importance and components of severity (in relation to emotional experience, hindrance in everyday life and prognosis) of each problem. The proportion of important problems and the chance corrected agreement (Cohen's Kappa) of importance between doctors and patients were assessed. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to relate the importance of a problem with its severity components - from the perspective of both the patient and the doctor., Results: Patients and GPs considered about two-thirds of all disclosed health problems important (69% and 64% respectively). However, they perceived different problems as important (Kappa 0.11). Doctors and patients also related different components of severity to the importance of a problem: the strongest predictor of a problem's importance for patients was the emotional experience, whereas for doctors it was an unfavourable prognosis., Conclusion: Patients and doctors have different perspectives on the importance of health problems. Setting priorities for treatment necessitates an open exchange of views on what to treat.

Aim: To determine the prevalence of health problems uncovered by a Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in a Primary Care Setting (STEP), to explore how often STEP uncovered conditions new to general practitioners (GP) and ascertain how often STEP results led GPs to plan further interventions., Methods: This descriptive, interim analysis was based on the data of 189 elderly patients (median age, 78 years; interquartile range [IQ], 74-81) and their 20 GPs collected in Hannover region, Germany, between June 2008 and April 2009. Study nurses in the practice setting applied the 44-item STEP instrument, based mainly on self-reporting, as well as a standardized patient interview. Subsequently, GPs indicated whether the problems were new to them, and whether they planned further action or health interventions on the basis of the problems identified by STEP., Results: A median of 11 health problems (IQ, 8-14) were uncovered per patient, of which a median of 2 (IQ, 1-4) were new to the GP and interventions were planned for a median of 2 problems (IQ, 0-4). Many of the identified health problems are typical of old age. The following health problems uncovered by STEP were often new to the GPs (percentages differ to numbers due to missing GP ratings): cognitive impairment (33 of 64 affected by this problem, 73%), missing or unknown immunization status (84 of 160, 55%), and recent chest pain (19 of 37, 53%). Alcohol misuse was new in all 4 affected patients (100%) and recent falls were new in 5 of 7 patients (83%). Interventions for affected patients were frequently planned for problems of immunization (for 83 patients of 160 reporting the problem, 57%), current anxiety (4 of 9, 50%), and chest pain (14 of 37, 44%). Moreover, further management was frequently planned for depression (10 of 29, 39%) and cognitive impairment (16 of 64, 38%)., Conclusion: Using a geriatric assessment in primary care discloses relevant heath problems and treatment needs that GPs may otherwise overlook.

Background: The aim of the study is to develop and test a consultation guide (PrefCheck) for general practitioners (GPs) based on geriatric assessment results. The goal of the consultation guide is to facilitate priority setting and treatment planning based on building a partnership with geriatric patients with multiple chronic diseases., Methods and Aims: The mixed method study consists of three complementary parts: (A) health and treatment priorities of 32 patients and their 8 GPs are determined and explored on the basis of assessment results. These findings lead to the development of the consultation guide, which is subsequently tested in a cluster-randomized controlled intervention study (B) with 40 GPs and 320 patients. The aim of this study is to assess whether PrefCheck results in improved agreement in the number of health and treatment priorities between patients and their doctors. The study concludes with an evaluation study (C) with 5 GPs and 15 patients., Conclusions: Results will be presented in a future publication. In particular it will be demonstrated whether the consultation guide can strengthen the position of older patients in the doctor-patient relationship, increase the level of information on both sides, and contribute to a shared and holistic treatment planning.

Background: Older people consume an increasing amount of medication. Polypharmacy is associated with an elevated risk of adverse health outcomes resulting in hospitalizations and sometimes death., Objectives: To describe the prevalence of prescribed and over-the-counter (OTC) medications among older general practice patients living in the community. To determine predictors of polypharmacy (five or more prescribed drugs) from a variety of patient- and doctor-related factors., Methods: Sixty-seven randomly selected practices in two areas of Germany and 466 of their older patients (70+ years) were recruited for a geriatric assessment study. A cross-sectional analysis of health problems, GPs' awareness and their interventions was conducted. In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the medication use as reported by older patients and compared it with doctors' perceived medication regimens for their respective patients. The detailed assessment of patients' health and well-being enabled us to explore a variety of predictors of polypharmacy using logistic regression analysis with forward selection., Results: Study participants consumed an average of 3.7 prescribed medicines and an additional 1.4 OTC drugs. In all, 26.7% of patients used five and more chronically prescribed drugs. A set of five determinants predicted polypharmacy best: breathlessness, hypertension, dependency on instrumental activities of daily living, low subjective health and medication disagreement between doctors and patients., Conclusion: This older general practice population in Germany is among the top pharmaceutical user group of European study samples. Apart from disease-specific determinants, GPs should be aware that low subjective health and medication disagreement are independent predictors of polypharmacy.

The article reports that oral antibiotic nitroxoline 5-nitro-8-hydroxyquinoline is licensed for urinary tract infections (UTI). It focuses on the cohort study to access the success of microbiology and safety of oral nitroxoline in hospitalized geriatric patients with lower UTI. It focuses on the susceptibility to nitroxoline.