Attitudes and practices of general practitioners in the diagnosis and management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To assess understanding of, and actual and potential roles in management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among GPs. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of Queensland GPs selected randomly from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners directory of members was carried out. Main outcome measures were knowledge levels of ADHD, current management practices, referral patterns and self-perceived information and training needs. Results: Three hundred and ninety-nine GPs returned a completed questionnaire (response rate 76%). Roles identified by GPs were: the provisional diagnosis of ADHD and referral to specialist services for confirmation of the diagnosis and initiation of management; assistance with monitoring progress once a management plan was in place; education of the child and their family regarding the disorder; and liaison with the school where necessary. Perceived barriers to increased involvement of GPs were: time and resource constraints of general practice; concerns regarding abuse and addiction liability of prescription stimulants; complex diagnostic issues associated with childhood behavioural problems; and lack of training and education regarding ADHD. Conclusions: General practitioners identify a role for themselves in ADHD care that is largely supportive in nature and involves close liaison with specialist services.

Levene tests of homogeneity of variance for general block and treatment designs

This article develops a weighted least squares version of Levene's test of homogeneity of variance for a general design, available both for univariate and multivariate situations. When the design is balanced, the univariate and two common multivariate test statistics turn out to be proportional to the corresponding ordinary least squares test statistics obtained from an analysis of variance of the absolute values of the standardized mean-based residuals from the original analysis of the data. The constant of proportionality is simply a design-dependent multiplier (which does not necessarily tend to unity). Explicit results are presented for randomized block and Latin square designs and are illustrated for factorial treatment designs and split-plot experiments. The distribution of the univariate test statistic is close to a standard F-distribution, although it can be slightly underdispersed. For a complex design, the test assesses homogeneity of variance across blocks, treatments, or treatment factors and offers an objective interpretation of residual plot.

Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients: putting a randomized controlled trial in the context of everyday practice

In a retrospective review, the telemedical management of 65 outpatients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of telemedicine for non-urgent referrals to a consultant neurologist was compared with the management of 76 patients seen face to face in the same trial, with that of 150 outpatients seen in the neurology clinics of district general hospitals and with that of 102 neurological outpatients seen by general physicians. Outcome measures were the numbers of investigations and of patient reviews. The telemedicine group did not differ significantly from the 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics in terms of either the number of investigations or the number of reviews they received. Patients from the RCT seen face to face had significantly fewer investigations but a similar number of reviews to the other 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists (the disparity in the number of investigations may explain the negative result for telemedicine in that RCT). Patients with neurological symptoms assessed by general physicians had significantly more investigations and were reviewed significantly more often than all the other groups. Patients from the RCT seen by telemedicine were not managed significantly differently from those seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics but had significantly fewer investigations and follow-ups than those patients managed by general physicians. The results suggest that management of new neurological outpatients by neurologists using telemedicine is similar to that by neurologists using a face-to-face consultation, and is more efficient than management by general physicians.

Should we debrief and counsel people who have had psychological shock?

Design: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing. Setting: A British teaching hospital (the Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford). Patients: 66 men and 40 women, aged 17–69 years, admitted to hospital after a motor vehicle accident. Most had been the driver of a car. Median admission duration was four days for the 52 control patients and eight days for the 54 who underwent the intervention. Interventions: A debriefing of about one hour on Day 2 of admission, encouraging patients to describe the accident and express their emotions, followed by a cognitive appraisal which included describing common reactions to traumatic experiences and suggesting a range of people who might be able to assist in the future, including the patient's general practitioner. 91 patients were assessed at four months and 61 were assessed at three years. Control patients had no debriefing or counselling. Main outcome measures: Impact of Event Scale (IES, which focuses on intrusive thoughts and avoidance of similar situations to the event); Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI, a measure of 53 symptoms); and other questions related to physical pain and functional activities. Main results: At four months there was still considerable psychological morbidity among the patients who were followed up. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in changes of IES between the 42 who received the intervention, in whom it increased from 15 (standard deviation [SD], 15) to 16 (SD, 15), and the 49 controls, in whom it fell from 15 (SD, 12) to 13 (SD, 14). Similarly, two subscales of the BSI score changed significantly between the intervention group, among whom it deteriorated from 0.5 (SD, 0.5) to 0.6 (SD, 0.8), and the control s, in whom it hardly changed from 0.4 (SD, 0.3) to 0.4 (SD, 0.4). Among the 61 patients followed for three years, the 30 randomised to receive the intervention were significantly worse, by self-report, both psychologically and physically. Their mean IES score deteriorated from a baseline of 15 (SD, 14) to 16 (SD, 18). In comparison, scores for the 31 control patients improved from 16 (SD, 12) to 13 (SD, 17). The difference in change was significant (P < 0.05). Among all patients with high initial scores, these decreased among the controls but not among those receiving the intervention. Conclusion: Psychological counselling should only be used in the context of trials rather than routine care.

General practitioner attitudes to case conferences: how can we increase participation and effectiveness?

Objectives: To identify general practitioners' views on the barriers to using case conferencing (as outlined in the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) Enhanced Primary Care package) and to develop a set of principles to encourage greater GP participation in case conferences. Design: Qualitative study, involving semistructured questions administered to focus groups of GPs, conducted between April and July 2001 as part of a broader study of case coordination in palliative care. Participants: 29 GPs from urban, regional, and rural areas of Queensland. Principal findings: Many of the GPs' work practices militated against participation in traditionally structured case conferences. GPs thought the range of MBS item numbers should be expanded to cover alternative methods of liaison (eg, phone consultations with other service providers). The onerous bureaucratic processes required to claim reimbursement were an additional disincentive. Conclusions: GPs would probably be more likely to participate in case conferences if they were initiated by specialist services and arranged more flexibly to suit GP work schedules.

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.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.