Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the result. Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a results format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

Multidisciplinary case conference reviews: Improving outcomes for nursing home residents, carers and health professionals

Aim of study: This study sought to determine whether multidisciplinary case conference reviews improved outcomes for nursing home residents, and the effects of this team approach to resident care on carers, including the hands-on carers employed by the nursing home, and health professionals. Method: 245 residents of three Canberra nursing homes were enrolled in this non-randomised controlled trial. The intervention consisted of sessions of three case conference reviews held between 10/4/96 and 4/12/96. These sessions were attended by the General Practitioners (GPs) of the residents discussed, the GP project officer from the ACT Division of General Practice, a clinical pharmacist, senior nursing staff, other health professionals eg physiotherapist, and occasionally the resident concerned or their representative. At each review, a case presentation by the resident's GP was followed by a multidisciplinary discussion of all aspects, medical and non-medical, of the resident's care. The review concluded with a management plan for the resident. In total 75 residents were reviewed. Main outcome measures: Medication use and cost, and mortality. Results: One month after the reviews were completed comparisons between those who were reviewed and those who were not showed non-significant reductions in medication orders, medication cost, and mortality in the reviewed group. Many of the 92 recommendations in the management plans that were carried out benefited the residents (n=37) and/or carers (n=24). The responses of the GPs and the Directors of Nursing to the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Conclusion: Recommendations arising from multidisciplinary case conferences were carried out to the benefit of patients and carers. Given the support shown by key stakeholders, multidisciplinary conferences should be used more.

Matching prescription claims with medication data for nursing home residents: Implications for prescriber feedback, drug utilisation studies and selection of prescription claims database

Medication data retrieved from Australian Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) claims for 44 veterans residing in nursing homes and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) claims for 898 nursing home residents were compared with medication data from nursing home records to determine the optimal time interval for retrieving claims data and its validity. Optimal matching was achieved using 12 weeks of RPBS claims data, with 60% of medications in the RPBS claims located in nursing home administration records, and 78% of medications administered to nursing home residents identified in RPBS claims. In comparison, 48% of medications administered to nursing home residents could be found in 12 weeks of PBS data, and 56% of medications present in PBS claims could be matched with nursing home administration records. RPBS claims data was superior to PBS, due to the larger number of scheduled items available to veterans and the veteran's file number, which acts as a unique identifier. These findings should be taken into account when using prescription claims data for medication histories, prescriber feedback, drug utilisation, intervention or epidemiological studies. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.