Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the result. Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a results format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

Domestic use of a disclosing solution for denture hygiene: a randomised trial

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the domestic use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene. Materials and methods: Completely edentulous participants wearing maxillary dentures were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention groups: (1) Follow-up only (control; n = 12); (2) Oral and denture hygiene instructions (n = 10); (3) Instructions associated with the home use of a disclosing agent (1% neutral red; n = 10). Biofilm coverage area (%) over internal and external surfaces of the maxillary denture was assessed at baseline and after 14 and 90 days. Data were evaluated by generalised estimating equations based on score tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: The participants presented low changes for areas of biofilm coverage (14 days (%): internal: GI = 1.4 +/- 0.9; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.3; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; external: GI = 1.4 +/- 1.5; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.4; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; 90 days (%): internal: GI = 2.0 +/- 0.9; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.4; GIII = 0.3 +/- 1.0; external: GI = 2.1 +/- 1.4; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.5; GIII = 0.3 +/- 0.9). Changes were similar for the three groups (p = 0.293) and were not influenced by the test time (p = 0.218). Conclusion: It can be concluded that the home use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene does not improve the removal of the biofilm, particularly for patients with adequate oral hygiene habits.

Multidisciplinary case conference reviews: Improving outcomes for nursing home residents, carers and health professionals

Aim of study: This study sought to determine whether multidisciplinary case conference reviews improved outcomes for nursing home residents, and the effects of this team approach to resident care on carers, including the hands-on carers employed by the nursing home, and health professionals. Method: 245 residents of three Canberra nursing homes were enrolled in this non-randomised controlled trial. The intervention consisted of sessions of three case conference reviews held between 10/4/96 and 4/12/96. These sessions were attended by the General Practitioners (GPs) of the residents discussed, the GP project officer from the ACT Division of General Practice, a clinical pharmacist, senior nursing staff, other health professionals eg physiotherapist, and occasionally the resident concerned or their representative. At each review, a case presentation by the resident's GP was followed by a multidisciplinary discussion of all aspects, medical and non-medical, of the resident's care. The review concluded with a management plan for the resident. In total 75 residents were reviewed. Main outcome measures: Medication use and cost, and mortality. Results: One month after the reviews were completed comparisons between those who were reviewed and those who were not showed non-significant reductions in medication orders, medication cost, and mortality in the reviewed group. Many of the 92 recommendations in the management plans that were carried out benefited the residents (n=37) and/or carers (n=24). The responses of the GPs and the Directors of Nursing to the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Conclusion: Recommendations arising from multidisciplinary case conferences were carried out to the benefit of patients and carers. Given the support shown by key stakeholders, multidisciplinary conferences should be used more.

James Parkinson (1755-1824): A pioneer of child care

James Parkinson (1755-1824) of Parkinson's disease, is well recognized as a pioneer of clinical neurology; and is even more famous as a founder of modem palaeontology. We have reviewed from primary sources his extensive contributions to clinical child care and his pioneering advocacy for child welfare, protection and safety. His writings, outreach and advocacy for children's health characterizes him as one whose influence was an important springboard from which evolved the modern specialty of paediatrics. Parkinson was one of the first to write on child-rearing practices and in this context antedated Benjamin Spock by 150 years. Parkinson was a pioneer of child safety and the prevention of childhood trauma. He wrote of the resuscitation of near-drowned children and of first aid for injured children. This critical analysis reviews his pioneering description of child abuse and the development of post-abuse hydrocephalus. He wrote the datum description (in English) of the pathophysiology and pathology of appendicitis in children, of fatal rabies in children and highlighted the risk of death even when the biting dog was not clinically rabid. His advocacy for social reform for children's welfare was courageous and pioneering. James Parkinson, hitherto unacknowledged, was a significant founder of the evolving discipline of paediatrics and child health.

An evaluation approach for a new paradigm - health care integration

This paper explores an approach to the implementation and evaluation of integrated health service delivery. It identifies the key issues involved in integration evaluation, provides a framework for assessment and identifies areas for the development of new tools and measures. A proactive role for evaluators in responding to health service reform is advocated.

The supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer (2000)

The diagnosis and subsequent treatment of prostate cancer is followed by a range of significant disease specific and iatrogenic sequelae. However, the supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer are not well described in the literature. The present study assesses the supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer who are members of prostate cancer self-help groups in Queensland, Australia. In all, 206 men aged between 48 and 85 years (mean = 68) completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) (62% response). The SCNS is a validated measure assessing perceived need in the domains of psychological needs, health system and information needs, physical and daily living needs, patient care and support, and sexuality. Items assessing need for access to services and resources were also included. One third of the sample reported a moderate to high need for help for multiple items in the sexuality, psychological and health system and information domains. Younger men reported greater need in the sexuality domain; living in major urban centres was predictive of greater psychological need; being closer to the time of diagnosis was related to greater need for help in the physical and daily living domain; having prostate cancer that is not in remission, having received radiation therapy, and lower levels of education were predictive of greater need for help in patient care and support. Of the total sample, 55% of men had used alternative cancer treatments in the past 12 months, with younger and more educated men more likely to use alternative therapies. Interventions in sexuality, psychological concerns and informational support are priorities for men with prostate cancer. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.