How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.

Benefits, harms and costs of screening mammography in women 70 years and over: a systematic review

Objective: To assess the (i) benefits, (ii) harms and (iii) costs of continuing mammographic screening for women 70 years and over. Data sources and synthesis: (i) We conducted a MEDLINE search (1966 - July 2000) for decision-analytic models estimating life-expectancy gains from screening in older women. The five studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using standard criteria. We estimated relative benefit from each model's estimate of effectiveness of screening in older women relative to that in women aged 50-69 years using the same model. (ii) With data from BreastScreen Queensland, we constructed balance sheets of the consequences of screening for women in 10-year age groups (40-49 to 80-89 years), and (iii) we used a validated model to estimate the marginal cost-effectiveness of extending screening to women 70 years and over. Results: For women aged 70-79 years, the relative benefit was estimated as 40%-72%, and 18%-62% with adjustment for the impact of screening on quality of life. For women over 80 years the relative benefit was about a third, and with quality-of-life adjustment only 14%, that in women aged 50-69 years. (ii) Of 10 000 Australian women participating in ongoing screening, about 400 are recalled for further testing, and, depending on age, about 70-112 undergo biopsy and about 19-80 cancers are detected. (iii) Cost-effectiveness estimates for extending the upper age limit for mammographic screening from 69 to 79 years range from $8119 to $27 751 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, which compares favourably with extending screening to women aged 40-49 years (estimated at between $24 000 and $65 000 per life-year saved). Conclusions: Women 70 years and over, in consultation with their healthcare providers, may want to decide for themselves whether to continue mammographic screening. Decision-support materials are needed for women in this age group.

Prospective independent validation of APACHE III models in an Australian tertiary adult intensive care unit

Evaluation of the performance of the APACHE III (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) ICU (intensive care unit) and hospital mortality models at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane is reported. Prospective collection of demographic, diagnostic, physiological, laboratory, admission and discharge data of 5681 consecutive eligible admissions (1 January 1995 to 1 January 2000) was conducted at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, a metropolitan Australian tertiary referral medical/surgical adult ICU. ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve areas for the APACHE III ICU mortality and hospital mortality models demonstrated excellent discrimination. Observed ICU mortality (9.1%) was significantly overestimated by the APACHE III model adjusted for hospital characteristics (10.1%), but did not significantly differ from the prediction of the generic APACHE III model (8.6%). In contrast, observed hospital mortality (14.8%) agreed well with the prediction of the APACHE III model adjusted for hospital characteristics (14.6%), but was significantly underestimated by the unadjusted APACHE III model (13.2%). Calibration curves and goodness-of-fit analysis using Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, demonstrated that calibration was good with the unadjusted APACHE III ICU mortality model, and the APACHE III hospital mortality model adjusted for hospital characteristics. Post hoc analysis revealed a declining annual SMR (standardized mortality rate) during the study period. This trend was present in each of the non-surgical, emergency and elective surgical diagnostic groups, and the change was temporally related to increased specialist staffing levels. This study demonstrates that the APACHE III model performs well on independent assessment in an Australian hospital. Changes observed in annual SMR using such a validated model support an hypothesis of improved survival outcomes 1995-1999.

The morbidity of Guillain-Barré syndrome admitted to the intensive care unit

Patients with severe forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) require intensive care. Specific treatment, catheterization, and devices may increase morbidity in the intensive care unit (ICU). To understand the spectrum of morbidity associated with ICU care, the authors studied 114 patients with GBS. Major morbidity occurred in 60% of patients. Complications were uncommon if ICU stay was less than 3 weeks. Respiratory complications such as pneumonia and tracheobronchitis occurred in half of the patients and were linked to mechanical ventilation. Systemic infection occurred in one-fifth of patients and was more frequent with increasing duration of ICU admission. Direct complications of treatment and invasive procedures occurred infrequently. Life-threatening complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding and pulmonary embolism were very uncommon. Pulmonary morbidity predominates in patients with severe GBS admitted to the ICU. Attention to management of mechanical ventilation and weaning is important to minimize this complication of GBS. Other causes of morbidity in a tertiary center ICU are uncommon.

Quality of care of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure

Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is an increasingly prevalent poor-prognosis condition for which effective interventions are available. It is -therefore important to determine the extent to which patients with CHF receive appropriate care in Australian hospitals and identify ways for improving suboptimal care, if it exists. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital acute care of patients with CHF using explicit quality indicators based on published guidelines. Methods: A retrospective case note review was -performed, involving 216 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between October 2000 and April 2001. Outcome measures were process-of-care quality -indicators calculated as proportions of all, or strongly -eligible (ideal), patients who received -specific interventions. Results: Assessment of underlying causes and acute precipitating factors was undertaken in 86% and 76% of patients, respectively, and objective evaluation of left ventricular function was performed in 62% of patients. Prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) was used in only 29% of ideal patients. Proportions of ideal patients receiving pharmacological treatments at discharge were: (i) angiotensin--converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) (82%), (ii) target doses of ACEi (61%), (iii) alternative vasodilators in patients ineligible for ACEi (20%), (iv) beta-blockers (40%) and (v) warfarin (46%). Conclusions: Opportunities exist for improving quality of in-hospital care of patients with CHF, -particularly for optimal prescribing of: (i) DVT prophylaxis, (ii) ACEi, (iii) second-line vasodilators, (iv) beta-blockers and (v) warfarin. More research is needed to identify methods for improving quality of in-hospital care.