Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting the doctor to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes of care (related to healthcare professionals' practice) and outcomes of care (related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the EPOC Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following databases between June 11-19, 2012: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Library (Economics, Methods, and Health Technology Assessment sections), Issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE, OVID (1946- ), Daily Update, and In-process; EMBASE, Ovid (1947- ); CINAHL, EbscoHost (1980- ); EPOC Specialised Register, Reference Manager, and INSPEC, Engineering Village. The authors reviewed reference lists of related reviews and studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes and/or outcomes of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. We contacted authors to obtain important missing information for studies that were published within the last 10 years. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median absolute improvement and interquartile range (IQR) in process adherence across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. MAIN RESULTS: In the 32 included studies, computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieved moderate improvement in professional practices, with a median improvement of processes of care of 7.0% (IQR: 3.9% to 16.4%). Implementing reminders alone improved care by 11.2% (IQR 6.5% to 19.6%) compared with usual care, while implementing reminders in addition to another intervention improved care by 4.0% only (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%) compared with the other intervention. The quality of evidence for these comparisons was rated as moderate according to the GRADE approach. Two reminder features were associated with larger effect sizes: providing space on the reminder for provider to enter a response (median 13.7% versus 4.3% for no response, P value = 0.01) and providing an explanation of the content or advice on the reminder (median 12.0% versus 4.2% for no explanation, P value = 0.02). Median improvement in processes of care also differed according to the behaviour the reminder targeted: for instance, reminders to vaccinate improved processes of care by 13.1% (IQR 12.2% to 20.7%) compared with other targeted behaviours. In the only study that had sufficient power to detect a clinically significant effect on outcomes of care, reminders were not associated with significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieve moderate improvement in process of care. Two characteristics emerged as significant predictors of improvement: providing space on the reminder for a response from the clinician and providing an explanation of the reminder's content or advice. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can improve care in various settings under various conditions.

Validation of a clinical prediction score for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain.

Background: A patient's chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease (CHD). An easy to use clinical prediction rule has been derived from the TOPIC study in Lausanne. Our objective is to validate this clinical score for ruling out CHD in primary care patients with chest pain. Methods: This secondary analysis used data collected from a oneyear follow-up cohort study attending 76 GPs in Germany. Patients attending their GP with chest pain were questioned on their age, gender, duration of chest pain (1-60 min), sternal pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the curve (ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Lausanne CHD score were calculated for patients with full data. Results: 1190 patients were included. Full data was available for 509 patients (42.8%). Missing data was not related to having CHD (p = 0.397) or having a cardiovascular risk factor (p = 0.275). 76 (14.9%) were diagnosed with a CHD. Prevalence of CHD were respectively of 68/344 (19.8%), 2/62 (3.2%), 6/103 (5.8%) in the high, intermediate and low risk category. ROC was of 72.9 (CI95% 66.8; 78.9). Ruling out patients with low risk has a sensitivity of 92.1% (CI95% 83.0; 96.7) and a specificity of 22.4% (CI95% 18.6%; 26.7%). Conclusion: The Lausanne CHD score shows reasonably good sensitivity and can be used to rule out coronary events in patients with chest pain. Patients at risk of CHD for other rarer reasons should nevertheless also be investigated.

Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort). RESULTS: The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3-5 points; negative result <or= 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%-94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%-83.9%). INTERPRETATION: The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.

What factors influence long-term antidepressant use in primary care? Findings from the Australian diamond cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in primary care. The rise in use is mostly due to an increasing number of long-term users of antidepressants (LTU AD). Little is known about the factors driving increased long-term use. We examined the socio-demographic, clinical factors and health service use characteristics associated with LTU AD to extend our understanding of the factors that may be driving the increase in antidepressant use. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 789 participants with probable depression (CES-D≥16) recruited from 30 randomly selected Australian general practices to take part in a ten-year cohort study about depression were surveyed about their antidepressant use. RESULTS: 165 (21.0%) participants reported <2 years of antidepressant use and 145 (18.4%) reported ≥2 years of antidepressant use. After adjusting for depression severity, LTU AD was associated with: single (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.05-2.32) or recurrent episode of depression (3.44, 2.06-5.74); using SSRIs (3.85, 2.03-7.33), sedatives (2.04, 1.29-3.22), or antipsychotics (4.51, 1.67-12.17); functional limitations due to long-term illness (2.81, 1.55-5.08), poor/fair self-rated health (1.57, 1.14-2.15), inability to work (2.49, 1.37-4.53), benefits as main source of income (2.15, 1.33-3.49), GP visits longer than 20min (1.79, 1.17-2.73); rating GP visits as moderately to extremely helpful (2.71, 1.79-4.11), and more self-help practices (1.16, 1.09-1.23). LIMITATIONS: All measures were self-report. Sample may not be representative of culturally different or adolescent populations. Cross-sectional design raises possibility of "confounding by indication". CONCLUSIONS: Long-term antidepressant use is relatively common in primary care. It occurs within the context of complex mental, physical and social morbidities. Whilst most long-term use is associated with a history of recurrent depression there remains a significant opportunity for treatment re-evaluation and timely discontinuation.

Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients' cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer. DESIGN: Canadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialists PARTICIPANTS: A total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients' care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care. RESULTS: Most specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.

Comprehensive assessment of patients in palliative care: a descriptive study utilizing the INTERMED.

Documentation in palliative care is often restricted to medical and sociodemographic information, and the assessment of physical and psychological symptoms or the quality of life. In order to overcome the lack of comprehensive information, we have evaluated the utility of the INTERMED-a biopsychosocial assessment method to document integrated information of patients' needs-in 82 consecutive patients for whom a palliative care consultation was requested. Results confirm the biopsychosocial heterogeneity of the sample, and the importance of integrated information to clinical, scientific, educational, and health care policy agendas. The INTERMED could become a useful method to tailor interdisciplinary interventions based on comprehensive patient needs assessment.

Development of mental disorders one year after exposure to psychosocial stressors; a cohort study in primary care patients with a physical complaint.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders, common in primary care, are often associated with physical complaints. While exposure to psychosocial stressors and development or presence of principal mental disorders (i.e. depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders defined as multisomatoforme disorders) is commonly correlated, temporal association remains unproven. The study explores the onset of such disorders after exposure to psychosocial stressors in a cohort of primary care patients with at least one physical symptom. METHOD: The cohort study SODA (SOmatization, Depression and Anxiety) was conducted by 21 private-practice GPs and three fellow physicians in a Swiss academic primary care centre. GPs included patients via randomized daily identifiers. Depression, anxiety or somatoform disorders were identified by the full Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a validated procedure to identify mental disorders based on DSM-IV criteria. The PHQ was also used to investigate exposure to psychosocial stressors (before the index consultation and during follow up) and the onset of principal mental disorders after one year of follow up. RESULTS: From November 2004 to July 2005, 1020 patients were screened for inclusion. 627 were eligible and 482 completed the PHQ one year later and were included in the analysis (77%). At one year, prevalence of principal mental disorders was 30/153 (19.6% CI95% 13.6; 26.8) for those initially exposed to a major psychosocial stressor and 26/329 (7.9% CI95% 5.2; 11.4) for those not. Stronger association exists between psychosocial stressors and depression (RR = 2.4) or anxiety (RR = 3.5) than multisomatoforme disorders (RR = 1.8). Patients who are "bothered a lot" (subjective distress) by a stressor are therefore 2.5 times (CI95% 1.5; 4.0) more likely to experience a mental disorder at one year. A history of psychiatric comorbidities or psychological treatment was not a confounding factor for developing a principal mental disorder after exposure to psychosocial stressors. CONCLUSION: This primary care study shows that patients with physical complaints exposed to psychosocial stressors had a higher risk for developing mental disorders one year later. This temporal association opens the field for further research in preventive care for mental diseases in primary care patients.

Evaluation de la formation PAPRICA (Physical Activity promotion in PRimary CAre)

La littérature indique que parmi les différents moyens de promotion de l'activité physique, le conseil par le médecin constitue une voie efficace. La formation PAPRICA, suivie à ce jour par env. 200 médecins, a pour but de promouvoir l'activité physique des patients par les médecins de premier recours. La présente recherche étudie la mise en oeuvre par les médecins des acquis de cette formation. Les données ont été recueillies grâce à un questionnaire à tous les participants, ainsi qu'à des entretiens téléphoniques auprès d'un échantillon plus restreint. Les principaux thèmes abordés concernent les apports de la formation, la pratique effective au cabinet et la satisfaction du médecin. [Auteurs, p. 7]

Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, validity and reliability of a self-reported questionnaire - the DiPCare-Q

Background: General practitioners play a central role in taking deprivation into consideration when caring for patients in primary care. Validated questions to identify deprivation in primary-care practices are still lacking. For both clinical and research purposes, this study therefore aims to develop and validate a standardized instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level. Methods: The Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) was developed using qualitative and quantitative approaches between 2008 and 2011. A systematic review identified 199 questions related to deprivation. Using judgmental item quality, these were reduced to 38 questions. Two focus groups (primary-care physicians, and primary-care researchers), structured interviews (10 laymen), and think aloud interviews (eight cleaning staff) assured face validity. Item response theory analysis was then used to derive the DiPCare-Q index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients who were to complete the questionnaire a second time over the phone. For construct and criterion validity, the final 16 questions were administered to a random sample of 1,898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary-care practices in western Switzerland (validation set) along with questions on subjective social status (subjective SES ladder), education, source of income, welfare status, and subjective poverty. Results: Deprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions (table); material deprivation (eight items), social deprivation (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (KR20 = 0.827) and the validation set (KR20 = 0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (ICC = 0.847). For construct validity, we showed the DiPCare-Q index to be correlated to patients' estimation of their position on the subjective SES ladder (rs = 0.539). This position was correlated to both material and social deprivation independently suggesting two separate mechanisms enhancing the feeling of deprivation. Conclusion: The DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care. Questions from the DiPCare-Q are easy to use when investigating patients' social history and could improve clinicians' ability to detect underlying social distress related to deprivation.

Etudiants en médecine et centres médico-sociaux: préparer l'avenir [Medical students and community health care centers: preparing the future].

Since 2011, second year medical students from Lausanne University follow a single day course in the community health care centers of the Canton of Vaud. They discover the medico-social network and attend to patients' visits at home. They experience the importance of the information transmission and the partnership between informal caregivers, professional caregivers, general practitioner and hospital units. The goal of this course is to help the future physicians to collaborate with the community health care centers teams. This will be particularly important in the future with an aging and more dependant population.

Enseignement prégradué de la médecine ambulatoire a la PMU: quelques repères [Pregraduate training in ambulatory care: a Swiss perspective].

The current lack of general practitioners in Switzerland is the result of health care policy which aimed in the past years to reduce the number of medical students and physicians in private practice. Furthermore, during the past decades, the Swiss Medical Schools emphasized on the transmission of medical care by specialists and neglected primary care medicine. The Faculty of medicine at the University of Lausanne recently decided to renew the curriculum. The Department of ambulatory care and community medicine (Policlinique Médicale Universitaire) of Lausanne is committed to the elaboration of this move. The biomedical model, essential to the acquisition of clinical competence, is still taught to the students. Nevertheless, from the beginning to the end of the curriculum, an emphasis is now put on the clinical skills and the clinical reasoning.

La PMU au carrefour des nouveaux chemins du système de santé [Redesigning Swiss ambulatory health care system].

Primary care medicine is first in line to meet the necessary changes in our health care system. Innovations in this field pursue three types of objectives: accessibility, quality and continuity of care. The Department of ambulatory care and community medicine of the University of Lausanne (Policlinique médicale universitaire) is committed to this path, emphasizing interprofessional collaboration. The doctor, nurse and medical assistant coordinate their activities to contribute efficiently to meet the needs of patients today and tomorrow. This paper also addresses how our department, as a public and academic institution, might play a major role as a health care network actor. A master degree dissertation in health management has started to identify the critical success factors and the strategic core competencies needed to achieve this development.

Patients âgées vulnérables au cabinet: comment les identifier et quelles ressources mobiliser [Vulnerable older patients in primary care how to identify them? Which ressources to mobilize? ].

Trust is essential to foster and preserve a long-term relationship between primary care physicians and their patients suffering from chronic diseases. However, this relation remains insufficient to successfully manage more complex situations, such as those of older patients with multiple diseases and disability. For the primary care physician, a significant limitation is the time required to plan and coordinate interventions supplied by different health and social care providers. This article describes a structured approach to support primary care physicians in this difficult task and help them to identify vulnerable older patients requiring to mobilize and coordinate health and social care resources. Current and future resources available to family physicians to complete this challenging task are further described.

Collaborative quality improvement to manage pain in acute care hospitals.

Objective. Collaborative quality improvement programs have been successfully used to manage chronic diseases in adults and acute lung complications in premature infants. Their effectiveness to improve pain management in acute care hospitals is currently unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a collaborative quality improvement program implemented at hospital level could improve pain management and overall pain relief. Design.To assess the effectiveness of the program, we performed a before-after trial comparing patient's self-reported pain management and experience before and after program implementation. We included all adult patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours and discharged either to their home or to a nursing facility, between March 1, 2001 and March 31, 2001 (before program implementation) and between September 15, 2005 and October 15, 2005 (after program implementation). Setting.A teaching hospital of 2,096 beds in Geneva, Switzerland. Patients.All adult patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours and discharged between 1 to 31 March 2001 (before program) and 15 September to 15 October 2005 (after program implementation). Interventions.Implementation of a collaborative quality improvement program using multifaceted interventions (staff education, opinion leaders, patient education, audit, and feedback) to improve pain management at hospital level. Outcome Measures.Patient-reported pain experience, pain management, and overall hospital experience based on the Picker Patient Experience questionnaire, perceived health (SF-36 Health survey). Results.After implementation of the program only 2.3% of the patients reported having no pain relief during their hospital stay (vs 4.5% in 2001, P = 0.05). Among nonsurgical patients, improvements were observed for pain assessment (42.3% vs 27.9% of the patients had pain intensity measured with a visual analog scale, P = 0.012), pain management (staff did everything they could to help in 78.9% vs 67.9% of cases P = 0.003), and pain relief (70.4% vs 57.3% of patients reported full pain relief P = 0.008). In surgical patients, pain assessment also improved (53.7.3% vs 37.6%) as well as pain treatment. More patients received treatments to relieve pain regularly or intermittently after program implementation (95.1% vs 91.9% P = 0.046). Conclusion.Implementation of a collaborative quality improvement program at hospital level improved both pain management and pain relief in patients. Further studies are needed to determine the overall cost-effectiveness of such programs.