You kind of want to fix it don’t you? Exploring general practice trainees’ experiences of managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms

Background
Much of a General Practitioner’s (GP) workload consists of managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). GP trainees are often taking responsibility for looking after people with MUS for the first time and so are well placed to reflect on this and the preparation they have had for it; their views have not been documented in detail in the literature. This study aimed to explore GP trainees’ clinical and educational experiences of managing people presenting with MUS.
Method
A mixed methods approach was adopted. All trainees from four London GP vocational training schemes were invited to take part in a questionnaire and in-depth semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire explored educational and clinical experiences and attitudes towards MUS using Likert scales and free text responses. The interviews explored the origins of these views and experiences in more detail and documented ideas about optimising training about MUS. Interviews were analysed using the framework analysis approach.


Results

Eighty questionnaires out of 120 (67 %) were returned and a purposive sample of 15 trainees interviewed. Results suggested most trainees struggled to manage the uncertainty inherent in MUS consultations, feeling they often over-investigated or referred for their own reassurance. They described difficulty in broaching possible psychological aspects and/or providing appropriate explanations to patients for their symptoms. They thought that more preparation was needed throughout their training. Some had more positive experiences and found such consultations rewarding, usually after several consultations and developing a relationship with the patient.
Conclusion
Managing MUS is a common problem for GP trainees and results in a disproportionate amount of anxiety, frustration and uncertainty. Their training needs to better reflect their clinical experience to prepare them for managing such scenarios, which should also improve patient care.

Obesity impacts on general practice appointments

Objective: To quantify the impact of obesity on the number of visits to both primary and secondary care teams.

Research Methods and Procedures: The adult populations of 80 general practices throughout the United Kingdom were classified according to their BMI. We undertook a cross-sectional survey of computer-generated and handwritten records of 6150 obese people (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and 1150 normal weight (BMI = 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) control subjects over an 18-month retrospective period.

Results: Obese patients made significantly more visits to the general practitioner (GP), practice nurse (PN), and hospital outpatient units than normal weight patients (all p < 0.001), and they were admitted to the hospital more often (p = 0.034). For both GP and PN visits, the relationship remained after adjusting for age, sex, social deprivation category, country, and number of comorbidities. Among obese patients, there was an increasing relationship between frequent GP visits (at least four appointments) and greater BMI, which remained significant after adjustment had been made for age, sex, deprivation, country, and number of comorbidities.

Discussion: The human resource burden to general practice is significantly higher in the obese population than in the normal weight population, even when adjusted for confounding factors. The increase in prevalence of obesity will continue to put pressure on GP and PN time unless appropriate action is taken.

The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population

Using latent class analysis (LCA), a previous study on patients attending primary care identified four courses of low back pain (LBP) over the subsequent 6 months. To date, no studies have used longitudinal pain recordings to examine the "natural" course of recurrent and chronic LBP in a population-based sample of individuals. This study examines the course of LBP in the general population and elaborates on the stability and criterion-related validity of the clusters derived. A random sample of 400 individuals reporting LBP in a population-based study was asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire at the start and end of the year's survey, and 52 weekly pain diaries in between. The latter were analyzed using LCA. 305 individuals returned more than 50% of the diaries. Four clusters were identified (severe persistent, moderate persistent, mild persistent, and fluctuating). The clusters differed significantly with regards to pain and disability. Assessment of cluster stability showed that a considerable proportion of patients in the "fluctuating" group changed their classification over time. Three of the four clusters describing the typical course of pain matched the clusters described previously for patients in primary care. Due to the population-based design, this study achieves, for the first time, a close insight into the "natural" course of chronic and recurrent low back pain, including individuals that did not necessarily visit the general practitioner. The findings will help to understand better the nature of this pain in the general population.

[Periprosthetic joint infections - a review for general practitioners]

The number of prosthetic joint implantation is continuously increasing. Periprosthetic joint infection is a rare but serious complication. The correct diagnosis is essential for successful treatment. It requires the close collaboration between general practitioners, orthopaedic surgeons and infectious disease specialists. A delayed diagnosis sets hurdles to the medical and surgical treatment. Also, antimicrobial treatment without proper microbiological sampling must be avoided. Swabs from wounds are not helpful, because the results represent the skin flora, but not the causative pathogen of infection. The general practitioner is the first physician that patients contact and has, therefore, a central role in diagnosing and managing periprosthetic joint infections. In this review, classification, diagnostic means and treatment concepts of periprosthetic joint infections are presented.

[Abdominal pain in the general doctor's practice]

Abdominal pain is a frequent symptom and in the majority of cases the underlying disease is not life threatening. The general practitioner's first task is to differentiate between inflammatory and other diseases. The patient's history, the clinical examination and laboratory tests form the basis for the differential diagnosis. A sonography is the first additional examination in the vast majority of the cases. Accidentally found gallstones usually do not require surgical intervention. Surgery in asymptomatic patients should be limited to gallbladder polyps and patients with calcifications in their gallbladder wall.

Evidence based check-up: the general medical point of view

Check-up is a frequent motivation for patients to see their general practitioner. The challenge lies in the choice of screening tools to accomplish an efficient, individual and age-adapted approach. In this article we review evidence-based screening methods, whose efficacy has been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials, as well as their application in clinical practice. While cardiovascular check-up has a high grade of evidence for nearly all patients, counselling to lifestyle change except for smoking cessation has been proved with lower evidence. In contrast, relatively new is the fact that ultrasound to screen for an abdominal aortic aneurysm is useful among men smokers or past smokers between 65 and 75 years old.

Organoleptic assessment of halitosis for dental professionals - general recommendations

An organoleptic assessment of an odor is defined as a method that can measure the strength of target odors and expresses the value in terms of a point or number with reference to a pre-defined organoleptic scale. Organoleptic assessments are performed using different scales and are used widely in industry (e.g. for measuring the effectiveness of anti-odor agents), in research (to discover relationships between bad breath and microbiology of the tongue, or the generation of particular volatile compounds), but it is also a prerequisite for the diagnosis of halitosis in individual patients required before directing appropriate treatment. An organoleptic assessment of halitosis patients may be carried out in specialized institutions but--based on the fact that in most cases the odor originates from oral structures--also by dental professionals including general dental practitioners (GDPs). Thus, this paper describes the scientific background for recommendations on how a GDP or dental hygienist or general practitioner with cases of bad breath should use organoleptic methods as a valid approach to assess malodor in patients, with a view to diagnosis and treatment, and subsequent treatment monitoring.

The impact on general practitioners of the changing balance of care for elderly people living in institutions

Objectives: To describe utilisation of general practitioners by elderly people resident in communal establishments; to examine variations in general practitioner utilisation and estimate the likely impact of the “downsizing” of long stay provision in NHS hospitals.

Why are patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors? Retrospective analysis of link between morbidity and prescribing in the General Practice Research Database

Objectives: To establish the relation between new prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors and recorded upper gastrointestinal morbidity within a large computerised general practitioner database.

General practitioners' role in preventive medicine: scenario analysis using alcohol as a case study

The purpose of this analysis is threefold: first, to extract from the literature, current levels of GP detection of at-risk drinking by their patients, rates at which general practitioners (GPs) offer an intervention; and the effectiveness of these interventions; secondly, to develop a model based on this literature to be used in conjunction with scenario analysis; and thirdly, to consider the cost implications of current efforts and various scenarios. This study deals specifically with Australian general practice. A two-step procedure is used in the scenario analysis, which involves identifying opportunities for detection, intervention, effectiveness and assigning probabilities to outcomes. The results suggest that increasing rates of GP intervention achieves greatest benefit and return on resource use. For every 5% point increase in the rate of GP intervention, an additional 26 754 at-risk drinkers modify their drinking behaviour at a cost of $231.45 per patient. This compares with a cost per patient modifying drinking behaviour of $232.60 and $208.31 for every 5% point increase in the rates of detection and effectiveness, respectively. The knowledge, skill and attitude of practitioners toward drinking are significant, and they can be the prime motivators in persuading their patients to modify drinking behaviour.

Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on the primary care burden and treatment of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in general practice in Scotland: population based study

Objectives To examine whether there are socioeconomic gradients in die incidence, prevalence, treatment, and follow up of patients with heart failure in primary care. Design Population based study. Setting 53 general practices (307741 patients) participating in the Scottish continuous morbidity recording project between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. Participants 2186 adults with heart failure. Main outcome measures Comorbid diagnoses, frequency of visits to general practitioner, and prescribed drugs. Results 2186 patients with heart failure were seen (prevalence 7.1 per 1000 population, incidence 2.0 per 1000 population). The age and sex standardised incidence of heart failure increased with greater socioeconomic deprivation, from 1.8 per 1000 population in the most affluent stratum to 2.6 per 1000 population in the most deprived stratum (odds ratio 1.44, P=0.0003). On average, patients were seen 2.4 times yearly, but follow up rates were less frequent with increasing socioeconomic deprivation (from 2.6 yearly in the most affluent subgroup to 2.0 yearly in the most deprived subgroup, P=0.00009). Overall, 812 (80.6%) patients were prescribed diuretics, 396 (39.3%) angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 216 (21.4%) beta blockers, 208 (20.7%) digoxin, and 86 (8.5%) spironolactone. The wide discrepancies in prescribing between different general practices disappeared after adjustment for patient age and sex. Prescribing patterns did not vary by deprivation categories on univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusions Compared with affluent patients, socioeconomically deprived patients were 44% more likely to develop heart failure but 23% less likely to see their general practitioner on an ongoing basis. Prescribed treatment did not differ across socioeconomic gradients.

General practice in Australia 2020: "robust and ready" or "rudderless and reeling"?

The future role and structure of Australian general practice remains uncertain, despite a decade of seemingly constant change following the release of the National Health Strategy papers. Some of the suggested change strategies (such as rural Practice Incentive Payments and practice accreditation) have been implemented; others (such as general practitioner involvement with area health authorities in delivering national goals and targets for communities) still await attention. An overarching vision for our health care system in 2020 and general practice's role within it are still to be clearly enunciated. Australia is at variance with other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which have spent significant time refocusing their health systems to deal with an ageing population with an increased burden of chronic disease. Health bureaucrats and governments need to invest strategically in operational primary care now. This will require the active commitment of general practice's national bodies to articulate and actively promote a shared vision for Australian general practice.

Can we get General Practitioners to Promote Physical Activity? Results of the 10,000 Steps Rockhampton Community-Based Physical Activity Promotion Project

Evidence supporting the efficacy of physical activity promotion in primary care settings has evaluated patient-level changes in physical activity, with little focus on the issue of general practitioner (GP) uptake. The 'GP Strategy' of 10,000 Steps Rockhampton provided an opportunity to explore this issue in the context of a multi-strategy, community-based physical activity intervention project. The 'GP Strategy' was developed in partnership with the Capricornia Division of General Practice. It aimed to: 1) increase GP awareness of the 10,000 Steps project, 2) upskill GPs in brief physical activity counselling techniques, and 3) provide GPs with evidencebased physical activity counselling materials and pedometers. The evaluation, which was guided by the RE-AIM evaluation framework, used a pre-post design, including a GP mailed survey, and collection of process data. Survey response rates were 67% (n=44/66; baseline) and 70% (n=37/53; 14-month follow-up). GP awareness of 10,000 Steps Rockhampton increased from 46% to 97%. 21/23 practices were visited by 10,000 Steps staff and accepted 10,000 Steps posters, brochures, and pedometers. At follow-up, 78% had displayed the poster, 81% were using the brochures, and 70% had loaned pedometers to patients. Despite the very high rate of uptake and use of 10,000 Steps materials, there was no change in the percentage of patients counselled, and relatively few pedometers had been loaned to patients. The results of this trial indicate that it will take more effort to change GP physical activity counselling behaviour, and provide only modest support for use of pedometers in the busy general practice setting. Acknowledgement:This project is supported by a grant from Health Promotion Queensland.

Formal professional relationships between general practitioners and specialists: possible associations with patient health and pharmacy costs

This article investigates whether the strength of formal professional relationships between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs) affects either the health status of patients or their pharmacy costs. To this end, it measures the strength of formal professional relationships between GPs and SPs through the number of shared patients and proxies the patient health status by the number of comorbidities diagnosed and treated. In strong GP–SP relationships, the patient health status is expected to be high, due to efficient care coordination, and the pharmacy costs low, due to effective use of resources. To test these hypotheses and compare the characteristics of the strongest GP–SP connections with those of the weakest, this article concentrates on diabetes—a chronic condition where patient care coordination is likely important. Diabetes generates the largest shared patient cohort in Hungary, with the highest traffic of specialist medication prescriptions. This article finds that stronger ties result in lower pharmacy costs, but not in higher patient health statuses. Key points for decision makers • The number of shared patients may be used to measure the strength of formal professional relationships between general practitioners and specialists. • A large number of shared patients indicates a strong, collaborative tie between general practitioners and specialists, whereas a low number indicates a weak, fragmented tie. • Tie strength does not affect patient health—strong, collaborative ties between general practitioners and specialists do not involve better patient health than weak, fragmented ties. • Tie strength does affect pharmacy costs—strong, collaborative ties between general practitioners and specialists involve significantly lower pharmacy costs than weak, fragmented ties. • Pharmacy costs may be reduced by lowering patient care fragmentation through channelling a general practitioner’s patients to a small number of specialists and increasing collaboration between general practitioner and specialists. • Limited patient choice is financially more beneficial than complete freedom of choice, and no more detrimental to patient health.