Search

Study Objectives: To determine if spirometry is essential for the early detection of COPD in general practice, compared to the screening value of a short questionnaire.Methods: A prospective survey of the population aged 35 to 70 years visiting their general practitioner (GP) during a 12-week period, using a questionnaire on symptoms of obstructive lung disease (OLD). Spirometry was performed in all participants with positive answers and in a 10% random sample from the group without complaints. Twenty GPs were provided with a hand-held spirometer, and received training in performance and interpretation of lung function tests. All 35- to 70-year-old patients (n = 3,408) were screened for current use of bronchodilators. The subgroup receiving bronchodilators (n = 250, 7%) was assumed to have OLD, and was excluded. Airflow obstruction was defined according to the European Respiratory Society standards.Results: The positive predictive power of the questionnaire was low (sensitivity, 58%; specificity, 78%; likelihood ratio, 2.6). One hundred twenty-six cases of formerly unknown OLD were detected in the group of patients with complaints, vs an extrapolated number of 90 in the group without complaints. Despite a negative predictive value of 95% for the questionnaire used, 42% of the newly diagnosed cases of OLD would not have been detected without spirometry.Conclusions: The use of a spirometer is mandatory if early stages of OLD are to be detected in general practice. Screening for airflow obstruction almost doubles the number of known patients with OLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnosis of dementia in primary care is both difficult and important. The recommendations by several authors to improve the diagnosis of dementia by general practitioners are important, but insufficient. It is argued that perhaps the disease concept in itself is a cause of confusion for clinicians. Primary care physicians need an adapted procedure, gradually leading to the final diagnosis of dementia. It has to be a stepwise labelling strategy, using global descriptions and non-disease specific labels in the beginning, ending up with well-defined disease criteria. In this process, there is circularity: previous diagnoses have to be kept in mind because symptoms and signs may gradually change during the progression of the disease, leading to reconsideration of previous deleted options. To frame this properly, the primary care physician needs to adopt a broad "frail elderly" geriatric concept. Implementation of this concept not only helps the diagnostic process, but also stimulates the care for dementing patients and their caregivers. Relevant arguments for early diagnostic involvement of primary care physicians can be put forward on condition that a new concept, adapted procedures and adapted instruments are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An elderly Belgian population group anno 1986 consisting of 53 men and 110 women above the age of 75 years with a mean age of 80 and 81 years, respectively, is characterized by relative obesity and low diastolic blood pressure, both in men and women. The SBP/DBP ratio is 1.91 in men and 1.88 in women. HDL-cholesterol levels are relatively high In men. Women still have slightly higher HDL-cholesterol levels than men, the difference between women and men being 3.4 mg/dl. In both sexes HOL-cholesterol correlates negatively with body weight The 24-hour urinary sodium/potassium ratio is 23 in men and 2.5 in women. Factors significantly related to diastolic blood pressure in a multiple regression analysis included being on a low-salt diet the level of 24-hour urinary potassium excretion and of 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in men, and body weight heart rate and the level of 24-hour urinary calcium excretion in women. It may be concluded that significant differences exist between the distribution of cardiovascular risk factors in older compared to middle-aged subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex, progressive disease which requires a variety of quality improvement strategies. Limited information is available on the feasibility and effectiveness of interdisciplinary diabetes care teams (IDCT) operating on the interface between primary and specialty care. A first study hypothesis was that the implementation of an IDCT is feasible in a health care setting with limited tradition in shared care. A second hypothesis was that patients who make use of an IDCT would have significantly better outcomes compared to non-users of the IDCT after an 18-month intervention period. A third hypothesis was that patients who used the IDCT in an Advanced quality Improvement Program (AQIP) would have significantly better outcomes compared to users of a Usual Quality Improvement Program (UQIP). Methods This investigation comprised a two-arm cluster randomized trial conducted in a primary care setting in Belgium. Primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 120) and their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 2495) were included and subjects were randomly assigned to the intervention arms. The IDCT acted as a cornerstone to both the intervention arms, but the number, type and intensity of IDCT related interventions varied depending upon the intervention arm. Results Final registration included 67 PCPs and 1577 patients in the AQIP and 53 PCPs and 918 patients in the UQIP. 84% of the PCPs made use of the IDCT. The expected participation rate in patients (30%) was not attained, with 12,5% of the patients using the IDCT. When comparing users and non-users of the IDCT (irrespective of the intervention arm) and after 18 months of intervention the use of the IDCT was significantly associated with improvements in HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, an increase in statins and anti-platelet therapy as well as the number of targets that were reached. When comparing users of the IDCT in the two intervention arms no significant differences were noted, except for anti-platelet therapy. Conclusion IDCT's operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care. More research is required on what team and program characteristics contribute to improvements in diabetes care. Trial registration NTR 1369.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the barriers and facilitators to high-quality diabetes care as experienced by general practitioners (GPs) who participated in an 18-month quality improvement program (QIP). This QIP was implemented to promote compliance with international guidelines. Methods Twenty out of the 120 participating GPs in the QIP underwent semi-structured interviews that focused on three questions: 'Which changes did you implement or did you observe in the quality of diabetes care during your participation in the QIP?' 'According to your experience, what induced these changes?' and 'What difficulties did you experience in making the changes?' Results Most GPs reported that enhanced knowledge, improved motivation, and a greater sense of responsibility were the key factors that led to greater compliance with diabetes care guidelines and consequent improvements in diabetes care. Other factors were improved communication with patients and consulting specialists and reliance on diabetes nurse educators. Some GPs were reluctant to collaborate with specialists, and especially with diabetes educators and dieticians. Others blamed poor compliance with the guidelines on lack of time. Most interviewees reported that a considerable minority of patients were unwilling to change their lifestyles. Conclusion Qualitative research nested in an experimental trial may clarify the improvements that a QIP may bring about in a general practice, provide insight into GPs' approach to diabetes care and reveal the program's limits. Implementation of a QIP encounters an array of cognitive, motivational, and relational obstacles that are embedded in a patient-healthcare provider relationship.

Abstract Background Most quality improvement programs in diabetes care incorporate aspects of clinician education, performance feedback, patient education, care management, and diabetes care teams to support primary care physicians. Few studies have applied all of these dimensions to address clinical inertia. Aim To evaluate interventions to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians. Design Two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants Primary care physicians in Belgium. Interventions Primary care physicians will be randomly allocated to 'Usual' (UQIP) or 'Advanced' (AQIP) Quality Improvement Programs. Physicians in the UQIP will receive interventions addressing the main physician, patient, and office system factors that contribute to clinical inertia. Physicians in the AQIP will receive additional interventions that focus on sustainable behavior changes in patients and providers. Outcomes Primary endpoints are the proportions of patients within targets for three clinical outcomes: 1) glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%; 2) systolic blood pressure differences ≤130 mmHg; and 3) low density lipoprotein/cholesterol < 100 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints are individual improvements in 12 validated parameters: glycosylated hemoglobin, low and high density lipoprotein/cholesterol, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, weight, physical exercise, healthy diet, smoking status, and statin and anti-platelet therapy. Primary and secondary analysis Statistical analyses will be performed using an intent-to-treat approach with a multilevel model. Linear and generalized linear mixed models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data, i.e., patients clustered withinimary care physicians, and repeated assessments clustered within patients. To compare patient characteristics at baseline and between the intervention arms, the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach will be used, taking the clustered nature of the data within physicians into account. We will also use the GEE approach to test for differences in evolution of the primary and secondary endpoints for all patients, and for patients in the two interventions arms, accounting for within-patient clustering. Trial Registration number: NTR 1369.