142 resultados para Primary care service
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between socio-demographic factors and the quality of preventive care and chronic care of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in a country with universal health care coverage. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort assessed a random sample of 966 patients aged 50-80years followed over 2years (2005-2006) in 4 Swiss university primary care settings (Basel/Geneva/Lausanne/Zürich). We used RAND's Quality Assessment Tools indicators and examined recommended preventive care among different socio-demographic subgroups. RESULTS: Overall patients received 69.6% of recommended preventive care. Preventive care indicators were more likely to be met among men (72.8% vs. 65.4%; p<0.001), younger patients (from 71.0% at 50-59years to 66.7% at 70-80years, p for trend=0.03) and Swiss patients (71.1% vs. 62.7% in forced migrants; p=0.001). This latter difference remained in multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, civil status and occupation (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86). Forced migrants had lower scores for physical examination and breast and colon cancer screening (all p≤0.02). No major differences were seen for chronic care of CV risk factors. CONCLUSION: Despite universal healthcare coverage, forced migrants receive less preventive care than Swiss patients in university primary care settings. Greater attention should be paid to forced migrants for preventive care.
Resumo:
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Fractures associated with bone fragility in older adults signal the potential for secondary fracture. Fragility fractures often precipitate further decline in health and loss of mobility, with high associated costs for patients, families, society and the healthcare system. Promptly initiating a coordinated, comprehensive pharmacological bone health and falls prevention program post-fracture may improve osteoporosis treatment compliance; and reduce rates of falls and secondary fractures, and associated morbidity, mortality and costs.Methods/design: This pragmatic, controlled trial at 11 hospital sites in eight regions in Quebec, Canada, will recruit community-dwelling patients over age 50 who have sustained a fragility fracture to an intervention coordinated program or to standard care, according to the site. Site study coordinators will identify and recruit 1,596 participants for each study arm. Coordinators at intervention sites will facilitate continuity of care for bone health, and arrange fall prevention programs including physical exercise. The intervention teams include medical bone specialists, primary care physicians, pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation clinicians, and community program organizers.The primary outcome of this study is the incidence of secondary fragility fractures within an 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include initiation and compliance with bone health medication; time to first fall and number of clinically significant falls; fall-related hospitalization and mortality; physical activity; quality of life; fragility fracture-related costs; admission to a long term care facility; participants' perceptions of care integration, expectations and satisfaction with the program; and participants' compliance with the fall prevention program. Finally, professionals at intervention sites will participate in focus groups to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integrated fragility fracture prevention program.This integrated program will facilitate knowledge translation and dissemination via the following: involvement of various collaborators during the development and set-up of the integrated program; distribution of pamphlets about osteoporosis and fall prevention strategies to primary care physicians in the intervention group and patients in the control group; participation in evaluation activities; and eventual dissemination of study results.Study/trial registration: Clinical Trial.Gov NCT01745068Study ID number: CIHR grant # 267395.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Up to 5% of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) four or more times within a 12 month period represent 21% of total ED visits. In this study we sought to characterize social and medical vulnerability factors of ED frequent users (FUs) and to explore if these factors hold simultaneously. METHODS: We performed a case-control study at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients over 18 years presenting to the ED at least once within the study period (April 2008 toMarch 2009) were included. FUs were defined as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Outcome data were extracted from medical records of the first ED attendance within the study period. Outcomes included basic demographics and social variables, ED admission diagnosis, somatic and psychiatric days hospitalized over 12 months, and having a primary care physician.We calculated the percentage of FUs and non-FUs having at least one social and one medical vulnerability factor. The four chosen social factors included: unemployed and/or dependence on government welfare, institutionalized and/or without fixed residence, either separated, divorced or widowed, and under guardianship. The fourmedical vulnerability factors were: ≥6 somatic days hospitalized, ≥1 psychiatric days hospitalized, ≥5 clinical departments used (all three factors measured over 12 months), and ED admission diagnosis of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses allowed comparison of two JGIM ABSTRACTS S391 random samples of 354 FUs and 354 non-FUs (statistical power 0.9, alpha 0.05 for all outcomes except gender, country of birth, and insurance type). RESULTS: FUs accounted for 7.7% of ED patients and 24.9% of ED visits. Univariate logistic regression showed that FUs were older (mean age 49.8 vs. 45.2 yrs, p=0.003),more often separated and/or divorced (17.5%vs. 13.9%, p=0.029) or widowed (13.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.029), and either unemployed or dependent on government welfare (31.3% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), compared to non-FUs. FUs cumulated more days hospitalized over 12 months (mean number of somatic days per patient 1.0 vs. 0.3, p<0.001; mean number of psychiatric days per patient 0.12 vs. 0.03, p<0.001). The two groups were similar regarding gender distribution (females 51.7% vs. 48.3%). The multivariate linear regression model was based on the six most significant factors identified by univariate analysis The model showed that FUs had more social problems, as they were more likely to be institutionalized or not have a fixed residence (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.65 to 12.93), and to be unemployed or dependent on government welfare (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.14) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to need medical care, as indicated by involvement of≥5 clinical departments over 12 months (OR 6.2; 95%CI, 3.74 to 10.15), having an ED admission diagnosis of substance abuse (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.46) and having a primary care physician (OR 1.70;95%CI, 1.13 to 2.56); however, they were less likely to present with an admission diagnosis of injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to combine at least one social with one medical vulnerability factor (38.4% vs. 12.1%, OR 7.74; 95% CI 5.03 to 11.93). CONCLUSIONS: FUs were more likely than non-FUs to have social and medical vulnerability factors and to have multiple factors in combination.
Resumo:
The primary care center at Lausanne University Hospital trains residents to new models of integrated care. The future GPs discover new forms of collaboration with nurses, pharmacists or social workers. The collaboration model includes seeing patients together or delegating care to other providers, with the aim of improving the efficiency of a patient-centered care approach. The article includes examples of integrated care in consultation for travelers, victims of violence, pharmacist medication adherence counseling, medicosocial team work for alcohol use disorders and nurse practitioners' primary care for asylum seekers.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department (ED) users meet several of the criteria of vulnerability, but this needs to be further examined taking into consideration all vulnerability's different dimensions. This study aimed to characterize frequent ED users and to define risk factors of frequent ED use within a universal health care coverage system, applying a conceptual framework of vulnerability. METHODS: A controlled, cross-sectional study comparing frequent ED users to a control group of non-frequent users was conducted at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Frequent users were defined as patients with five or more visits to the ED in the previous 12 months. The two groups were compared using validated scales for each one of the five dimensions of an innovative conceptual framework: socio-demographic characteristics; somatic, mental, and risk-behavior indicators; and use of health care services. Independent t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Pearson's Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used for the comparison. To examine the -related to vulnerability- risk factors for being a frequent ED user, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: We compared 226 frequent users and 173 controls. Frequent users had more vulnerabilities in all five dimensions of the conceptual framework. They were younger, and more often immigrants from low/middle-income countries or unemployed, had more somatic and psychiatric comorbidities, were more often tobacco users, and had more primary care physician (PCP) visits. The most significant frequent ED use risk factors were a history of more than three hospital admissions in the previous 12 months (adj OR:23.2, 95%CI = 9.1-59.2), the absence of a PCP (adj OR:8.4, 95%CI = 2.1-32.7), living less than 5 km from an ED (adj OR:4.4, 95%CI = 2.1-9.0), and household income lower than USD 2,800/month (adj OR:4.3, 95%CI = 2.0-9.2). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users within a universal health coverage system form a highly vulnerable population, when taking into account all five dimensions of a conceptual framework of vulnerability. The predictive factors identified could be useful in the early detection of future frequent users, in order to address their specific needs and decrease vulnerability, a key priority for health care policy makers. Application of the conceptual framework in future research is warranted.
Resumo:
Few studies have examined the workload or clinical spectrum of non-HIV infectious diseases outpatient consultations (IDOC). This retrospective study aims to describe IDOC referrals over the past 5 years. In total, 483 patients were referred (with an increase of 63% between 2009 and 2013). Most referrals were received from primary care clinicians (45%). Median patient age was 47 years, 57% of patients were men and 17% were immunosuppressed. Of the diagnoses retained, 74% were infectious, 20% were non-infectious and 6% were of unknown aetiology. Two community outbreaks were identified (tattoo-related mycobacterial infection and Q fever). In conclusion, the infectious diseases outpatient clinic, which has expanded progressively in the past 5 years, provides a specialised service for primary health clinicians and for public health.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Changing Directions, Changing Lives, the Mental Health Strategy for Canada, prioritizes the development of coordinated continuums of care in mental health that will bridge the gap in services for Inuit populations. OBJECTIVE: In order to target ways of improving the services provided in these contexts to individuals in Nunavik with depression or anxiety disorders, this research examines delays and disruptions in the continuum of care and clinical, individual and organizational characteristics possibly associated with their occurrences. DESIGN: A total of 155 episodes of care involving a common mental disorder (CMD), incident or recurring, were documented using the clinical records of 79 frontline health and social services (FHSSs) users, aged 14 years and older, living in a community in Nunavik. Each episode of care was divided into 7 stages: (a) detection; (b) assessment; (c) intervention; (d) planning the first follow-up visit; (e) implementation of the first follow-up visit; (f) planning a second follow-up visit; (g) implementation of the second follow-up visit. Sequential analysis of these stages established delays for each one and helped identify when breaks occurred in the continuum of care. Logistic and linear regression analysis determined whether clinical, individual or organizational characteristics influenced the breaks and delays. RESULTS: More than half (62%) the episodes of care were interrupted before the second follow-up. These breaks mostly occurred when planning and completing the first follow-up visit. Episodes of care were more likely to end early when they involved anxiety disorders or symptoms, limited FHSS teams and individuals over 21 years of age. The median delay for the first follow-up visit (30 days) exceeded guideline recommendations significantly (1-2 weeks). CONCLUSION: Clinical primary care approaches for CMDs in Nunavik are currently more reactive than preventive. This suggests that recovery services for those affected are suboptimal.