Alcohol Brief Intervention in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of brief interventions aimed at reducing chronic alcohol use and harm related to alcohol consumption, conducted among individuals actively attending primary care but who were not seeking help for alcohol problems. METHODS: Randomised trials reporting at-least one outcome related to alcohol consumption and conducted in outpatients who were actively attending primary care centre or provider were selected using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, ETOH database, and bibliographies of the retrieved references and previous reviews. Selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We assessed validity of the studies and performed a meta-analysis for studies reporting alcohol consumption at 6 or 12 months follow up. RESULTS: We included 24 reports, reporting results of 19 trials and including 5,639 individuals. Seventeen trials reported a measure of alcohol consumption, eight reporting a significant effect of intervention. The meta-analysis showed a mean pooled difference of -41 (95% CI: −54; −28) g of pure ethanol per week in favour of brief intervention group. Evidences for other outcomes (laboratory values, health related quality of life, morbidity and mortality, health care utilisation) were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review indicated that brief intervention might be effective for both men and women in reducing alcohol consumption compared to a controlled intervention, in a primary health care population. The meta-analysis confirmed the reduction in alcohol consumption at 6 and 12 month. Further research should precise the components of effectiveness of brief intervention and the evidence of effects on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life related outcomes.

Prise en charge par le praticien des infections après transplantation d'organes solides [Management of infection after organ transplantation by the primary care physician]

The primary care physician is frequently consulted in first line for infectious complications in organ transplant recipients. Many infections without signs of severity can nowadays be managed on an outpatient basis. However, a number of clinical situations specific to transplant recipients may require special attention and knowledge. In particular, the general practitioner must be aware of the potential interactions between immunosuppressive and antimicrobial therapies, the risk of renal dysfunction as a consequence of diarrhea or urinary tract infection, and the diagnostic of CMV disease as a cause of fever without obvious source occurring several months after transplantation. Collaboration with the transplantation specialists is recommended in order to assure an optimal management of these patients.

Intervention précoce dans les troubles psychotiques: quel rôle pour les praticiens de premier recours [Early intervention in psychotic disorders: which role for primary care practitioners?]

The development of early intervention in psychotic disorders has allowed a more optimistic approach and the development of more adapted and more efficient treatments. Primary care practitioners are often the first professional contact for patients developing psychosis, but diagnostic difficulties and patients' reluctance to engage in treatment are often an obstacle to private practice treatment. It is therefore important to provide more information to primary care practitioners on specific characteristics of these disorders and about locally available treatment structures in order to allow them to suspect this relatively rare diagnosis, facilitate the collaboration with flexible and accessible specialist services, that ideally should provide home treatment, and to improve prognosis.

Patient and physician gender concordance in preventive care in university primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of preventive care according to physician and patient gender in a country with universal health care coverage. METHODS: We assessed a retrospective cohort study of 1001 randomly selected patients aged 50-80years followed over 2years (2005-2006) in 4 Swiss university primary care settings (Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Zürich). We used indicators derived from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools and examined percentages of recommended preventive care. Results were adjusted using hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 1001 patients (44% women) were followed by 189 physicians (52% women). Female patients received less preventive care than male patients (65.2% vs. 72.1%, p<0.001). Female physicians provided significantly more preventive care than male physicians (p=0.01) to both female (66.7% vs. 63.6%) and male patients (73.4% vs. 70.7%). After multivariate adjustment, differences according to physician (p=0.02) and patient gender (p<0.001) remained statistically significant. Female physicians provided more recommended cancer screening than male physicians (78.4 vs. 71.9%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In Swiss university primary care settings, female patients receive less preventive care than male patients, with female physicians providing more preventive care than male physicians. Greater attention should be paid to female patients in preventive care and to why female physicians tend to provide better preventive care.

Older persons' perceptions of general practitioner or specialist primary care physicians : same point of view?

BACKGROUND: Identification of a Primary Care Physician (PCP) by older patients is considered as essential for the coordination of care, but the extent to which identified PCPs are general practitioners or specialists is unknown. This study described older patients' experiences with their PCP and tested the hypothesis of differences between patients who identify a specialist as their PCP (SP PCP) and those who turn to a general practitioner (GP PCP). METHODS: In 2012, a cross-sectional postal survey on care was conducted in the 68+ year old population of the canton of Vaud. Data was provided by 2,276 participants in the ongoing Lausanne cohort 65+ (Lc65+), a study of those born between 1934 and 1943, and by 998 persons from an additional sample drawn to include the population outside of Lausanne or born before 1934. RESULTS: Participants expressed favourable perceptions, at rates exceeding 75% for most items. However, only 38% to 51% responded positively for out-of-hours availability, easy access and at home visits, likelihood of prescribing expensive medication if needed, and doctors' awareness of over-the-counter drugs. 12.0% had an SP PCP, in 95.9% specialised in a discipline implying training in internal medicine. Bivariate and multivariate analyses did not result in significant differences between GP and SP PCPs regarding perceptions of accessibility/availability, doctor-patient relationship, information and continuity of care, prevention, spontaneous use of the emergency department or ambulatory care utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of old patients were mostly positive despite some lack in reported hearing, memory testing, and colorectal cancer screening. We found no differences between GP and SP PCP groups.

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

OBJECTIVES: Advances in biopsychosocial science have underlined the importance of taking social history and life course perspective into consideration in primary care. For both clinical and research purposes, this study aims to develop and validate a standardised instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level. METHODS: We identified relevant potential questions regarding deprivation using a systematic review, structured interviews, focus group interviews and a think-aloud approach. Item response theory analysis was then used to reduce the length of the 38-item questionnaire and derive the deprivation in primary care questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients during their planned visits to an ambulatory general internal medicine clinic. Patients completed the questionnaire a second time over the phone 3 days later to enable us to assess reliability. Content validity of the DiPCare-Q was then assessed by 17 general practitioners. Psychometric properties and validity of the final instrument were investigated in a second set of patients. The DiPCare-Q was administered to a random sample of 1898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary care practices in western Switzerland along with questions on subjective social status, education, source of income, welfare status and subjective poverty. RESULTS: Deprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions: material (eight items), social (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20) =0.827) and the validation set (KR20 =0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (interclass correlation coefficients=0.847) and was correlated to subjective social status (r(s)=-0.539). CONCLUSION: The DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument that may prove useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care.

Patients with non-insulin depending diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome are suboptimal treated in swiss primary care.

The prevalence of complicated hypertension is increasing in America and Europe. This survey was undertaken to assess the status quo of primary care management of hypertension in patients with the high-risk comorbid diseases metabolic syndrome (MetS) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (non-insulin depending diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)). Data of anti-hypertensive treatment of 4594 Swiss patients were collected over 1 week. We identified patients with exclusively NIDDM (N = 95), MetS (N = 168), and both (N = 768). Target blood pressure (TBP) attainment, frequency of prescribed substance-classes, and correlations to comorbidities/end-organ damages were assessed. In addition, we analyzed the prescription of unfavorable beta-blockers (BB) and high-dose diuretics (Ds). In NIDDM, Ds (61%), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (40%), and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (31%) were mostly prescribed, while in MetS, drugs prevalence was Ds (68%), ARBs (48%), and BB (41%). Polypharmacy in patients with MetS correlated with body mass index; older patients (>65 years) were more likely to receive dual-free combinations. TBP was attained in 25.2% of NIDDM and in 28.7% of MetS patients. In general, low-dose Ds use was more prevalent in NIDDM and MetS, however, overall, Ds were used excessively (NIDDM: 61%, MetS: 68%), especially in single-pill combination. Patients with MetS were more likely to receive ARBs, ACEIs, CCBs, and low-dose Ds than BBs and/or high-dose Ds. Physicians recognize DM and MetS as high-risk patients, but select inappropriate drugs. Because the majority of patients may have both, MetS and NIDDM, there is an unmet need to define TBP for this specific population considering the increased risk in comparison to patients with MetS or NIDDM alone.

The 'help' question doesn't help when screening for major depression : external validation of the three-question screening test for primary care patients managed for physical complaints

La dépression majeure est fréquente chez les patients qui consultent un cabinet de médecine générale. Elle reste toutefois difficile à diagnostiquer car elle est souvent masquée par une ou plusieurs plaintes physiques qui sont l'unique motif de consultation. Pour aider le médecin généraliste à démasquer ce trouble, un test de dépistage composé de deux questions a été développé et validé. Ce test indique une probabilité accrue de dépression si le patient répond positivement à au moins une des deux questions suivantes : « Est-ce que, durant le mois qui a précédé, vous vous êtes senti(e) triste, déprimé(e), désespéré(e) ? » et « Durant le mois qui a précédé, avez-vous ressenti un manque d'intérêt et de plaisir dans la plupart des activités que d'habitude vous appréciez ? ». Une troisième question, ajoutée aux deux questions ci-dessus, a été proposée récemment afin d'améliorer les performances de ce test de dépistage. Cette troisième question rend le test négatif si le patient répond négativement à la question suivante : « Souhaitez-vous de l'aide pour cela ? ». Une étude avait indiqué que l'ajout de la question supplémentaire améliorait la spécificité du test sans réduire sa sensibilité. Objectifs Il s'agissait de décrire la performance de deux tests de dépistage de la dépression majeure, composés, respectivement, de deux et de trois questions, dans une population de patients consultant dans un cabinet de médecine générale pour une plainte physique, et de les valider. Méthode Les réponses aux questions des tests de dépistage de la dépression dans la population de la cohorte SODA (Somatisation, Depression, Anxiety) ont été utilisées. Il s'agissait de patients de plus de 18 ans, sélectionnés aléatoirement, consultant pour au moins une plainte physique auprès de 24 médecins généralistes de Suisse Romande, réexaminés une année après l'inclusion dans la cohorte. Le questionnaire validé « Full Patient Health Questionnaire » a été utilisé, le même jour, pour diagnostiquer une dépression majeure. Ce résultat a été utilisé pour évaluer les performances des deux tests de dépistage en calculant la sensibilité et la spécificité, notamment. Résultats Les données de 724 / 937 patients inclus ont pu être utilisées. Un diagnostic de dépression majeure a été posé chez 9.5% des patients (n = 69). La sensibilité et la spécificité des deux questions de dépistage étaient de 91.3% (IC95% : 81.4-96.4%) et 65.0% (IC95% : 61.2-68.6%), respectivement. En ajoutant la troisième question, la sensibilité des deux questions de dépistage a diminué à 59.4% (IC95% : 47.0-70.9%) et la spécificité a augmenté à 88.2% (IC95% : 85.4-90.5%). Conclusions L'utilisation des deux questions pour le dépistage de la dépression majeure est associée à une haute sensibilité et à une basse spécificité chez des patients se présentant en cabinet de médecine générale pour une plainte physique. En ajoutant la troisième question, la spécificité augmente, mais la sensibilité diminue. Ainsi, en ajoutant la troisième question, quatre patients dépressifs majeurs sur dix ne sont pas détectés, alors que seulement un patient sur dix n'est pas détecté avec les deux questions de dépistage. Notre étude montre que le test composé de deux questions reste une méthode de choix pour le dépistage de la dépression majeure et que l'ajout de la troisième question n'est pas recommandée. Celle-ci reste toutefois pertinente dans l'incitation au dialogue sur le sujet de la dépression entre le médecin et son patient.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy. RESULTS: Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used. CONCLUSIONS: Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: a systematic review.

Issues. Numerous studies have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, much of this work has been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care and determine if outcomes differ between efficacy and effectiveness trials. Approach. A pre-specified search strategy was used to search all relevant electronic databases up to 2006. We also hand-searched the reference lists of key articles and reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving patients in primary care who were not seeking alcohol treatment and who received brief intervention. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Key Findings. The primary meta-analysis included 22 RCT and evaluated outcomes in over 5800 patients. At 1 year follow up, patients receiving brief intervention had a significant reduction in alcohol consumption compared with controls [mean difference: -38 g week(-1), 95%CI (confidence interval): -54 to -23], although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 57%). Subgroup analysis confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men but not in women. Extended intervention was associated with a non-significantly increased reduction in alcohol consumption compared with brief intervention. There was no significant difference in effect sizes for efficacy and effectiveness trials. Conclusions. Brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in men, with benefit at a year after intervention, but they are unproven in women for whom there is insufficient research data. Longer counselling has little additional effect over brief intervention. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature is relevant to routine primary care.

A measure of the intensity of response to alcohol to screen for alcohol use disorders in primary care.

Alcohol-dependent subjects tend to report lower level of response to alcohol (LR) in the years before the disorder developed, compared to control subjects. The Self-Rating of the Effects of alcohol (SRE) score is a quick and valid retrospective estimate of LR. This study examined the associations between alcohol abuse or dependence and early experience of alcohol as measured on retrospective SRE score (relating to the first five times alcohol was imbibed), and the presence of alcohol abuse or dependence, in patients attending primary care. Higher Early SRE score (i.e. greater early tolerance of alcohol) was obtained in patients with an alcohol-related diagnosis than in patients without those diagnoses. Using a cut-off of 2 on the Early SRE score, the Early SRE score could discriminate between patients with and without an alcohol diagnosis with moderate to high sensitivity (84%) and modest specificity (57%).

The quality of primary care in a country with universal health care coverage.

BACKGROUND: Standard indicators of quality of care have been developed in the United States. Limited information exists about quality of care in countries with universal health care coverage.OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of preventive care and care for cardiovascular risk factors in a country with universal health care coverage.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of 1,002 patients aged 50-80 years followed for 2 years from all Swiss university primary care settings.MAIN MEASURES: We used indicators derived from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools. Each indicator was scored by dividing the number of episodes when recommended care was delivered by the number of times patients were eligible for indicators. Aggregate scores were calculated by taking into account the number of eligible patients for each indicator.KEY RESULTS: Overall, patients (44% women) received 69% of recommended preventive care, but rates differed by indicators. Indicators assessing annual blood pressure and weight measurements (both 95%) were more likely to be met than indicators assessing smoking cessation counseling (72%), breast (40%) and colon cancer screening (35%; all p < 0.001 for comparisons with blood pressure and weight measurements). Eighty-three percent of patients received the recommended care for cardiovascular risk factors, including > 75% for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes. However, foot examination was performed only in 50% of patients with diabetes. Prevention indicators were more likely to be met in men (72.2% vs 65.3% in women, p < 0.001) and patients < 65 years (70.1% vs 68.0% in those a parts per thousand yen65 years, p = 0.047).CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized tools, these adults received 69% of recommended preventive care and 83% of care for cardiovascular risk factors in Switzerland, a country with universal coverage. Prevention indicator rates were lower for women and the elderly, and for cancer screening. Our study helps pave the way for targeted quality improvement initiatives and broader assessment of health care in Continental Europe.