How do clinical nurse specialists influence primary care management of asthma? A qualitative study.

METHODS: We carried out a qualitative interview study alongside a randomised controlled trial which tested the effectiveness of asthma nurse specialists in east London. We carried out face-to-face interviews with five asthma nurse specialists, eight general practitioners (GPs) and six practice nurses, and also held a focus group session with six people who had attended hospital with acute asthma. RESULTS: Four factors were associated with effective specialist nurse liaison: (1) primary care practices which prioritised asthma care; (2) GPs who trusted practice nurses to manage chronic disease autonomously; (3) GPs who recognised specialist nurse expertise and acted on their advice; and (4) practices which had simple systems in place to deal with recommendations. Patients found nurse specialists approachable and informative. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma specialist nurse influence was greatest in practices that prioritised asthma care and where practice nurses had clinical autonomy. Patients valued specialist nurses but found advice from a multiplicity of clinicians confusing. Ensuring that practices prioritise chronic disease care, and improving the credibility of nurse specialists amongst GPs, may improve the effectiveness of asthma nurse specialists.     

Comparison of clinical management of young and elderly asthmatics by respiratory specialists and general practitioners

Background: Asthmatic death in the elderly is a serious problem worldwide. Differences in clinical skill between respiratory specialists (RS) and general practitioners (GP) are important in asthma control. The aim of this study was to compare asthma management between RS and GP. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in Shimane, Japan, in February 2009 using a questionnaire about patient background, treatment, asthma control test (ACT) and adherence to treatment. We secured the cooperation of 48 clinics (39 private clinics and 9 general hospitals). Asthmatics were divided into the elderly and young groups, and also into the RS and GP groups. Results: Clinical data of 779 patients were available for analysis. Elderly patients constituted 464 (RS group: 192, GP group: 272), while those of the young group were 315 (RS group: 207, GP group: 108). RS prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) to their elderly and young patients more than GP. The total ACT score was higher in young RS group than in young GP group, but no such difference was noted in the elderly. Despite more asthma-related symptoms, the ACT showed that elderly GP asthmatics used fewer rescue inhalers than elderly RS. Self-assessment was higher in elderly GP than elderly RS asthmatics. Adherence to therapy was better in elderly patients than young patients. Conclusions: Elderly asthmatics treated by GPs underestimated the severity of their asthma and asthmatics seen by GPs were undertreated. The results stress the need to engage patients in educational activities, to adhere to guidelines, and to improve the coordination between GP and RS.     

Asthma 3+ Visit Plan: a qualitative evaluation

INTRODUCTION: The Asthma 3+ Visit Plan is a Commonwealth primary care initiative to improve care for patients with moderate or severe asthma through visits to general practitioners (GP). AIMS: To assess the use of, and barriers to, completing the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan in recurrent emergency department attendees; asthma knowledge, symptoms and quality of life were assessed before and after undertaking the plan. METHODS: The design was a predominantly qualitative study. Consenting individuals who presented for emergency treatment for asthma were interviewed before and after completing the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan with their GP. Asthma knowledge, symptom control, quality of life and demographic information were collected and participants underwent in-depth interviews for qualitative analysis. The setting was a tertiary teaching hospital and two suburban hospitals. The participants were 20 recurrent emergency attendees with asthma. RESULTS: Individuals who completed the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan had significant improvements in asthma-related quality of life and asthma knowledge. Qualitative interviews revealed that recurrent emergency attendees for asthma viewed the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan favourably. A good relationship with the GP appeared integral to the success of the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan and patient recall was an important factor in plan completion. Cost was also a barrier to patients completing the plan. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the Asthma 3+ Visit Plan as a discharge strategy for recurrent emergency attendees with asthma.     

Asthma management and control in the United States: results of the 2009 Asthma Insight and Management survey

Past asthma surveys have shown suboptimal management and control of asthma in the United States. No major survey of asthma management has been conducted since the Third Expert Panel Report for the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of asthma (August 2007). This study was designed to report asthma management and control results from the Asthma Insight and Management survey of U.S. patients and physicians. A telephone-based survey was conducted during 2009 in 2500 patients with asthma, aged ≥12 years, and 309 physicians (104 allergists, 54 pulmonologists, 101 family practitioners, and 50 internists). Patients' asthma control perceptions (71% "completely controlled" or "well controlled") were inconsistent with their NAEPP control level as determined by self-reported symptoms (29% well controlled). Patients and physicians had low expectations for effective asthma management; patients considered asthma well managed if rescue medication was used three times per week (46%), urgent care visits occurred twice per year (67%), or emergency department visits occurred once per year (60%). Asthma-related syncope, seizure, intensive care unit admission, and intubation were associated with uncontrolled asthma based on NAEPP guidelines. Respiratory specialists (allergists/pulmonologists) implemented asthma management recommendations more than other physicians surveyed. However, only 22% of patients visited a specialist for usual asthma care and 48% had never visited a specialist. Despite detailed NAEPP guidance, asthma management and control in U.S. patients is unsatisfactory. Improved asthma control assessment (impairment and risk) and implementation of NAEPP management recommendations are needed to improve asthma control and outcomes.     

Palliation by laser photoablation: a multidisciplinary quality assessment.

To evaluate the quality of life and degree of palliation by laser photoablation for gastrointestinal cancer, a questionnaire was sent to general practitioners (GPs) and referring specialists. The response was 85%. General practitioners considered palliation by laser to be effective in 74% compared with 50% for referring specialists (p less than 0.001). Specialists felt themselves unable to answer in 17% compared with no GPs (p less than 0.001). The differences in assessment between specialists and GPs were most pronounced in colorectal cancers. There was a striking consensus of opinion about the rate of failed palliation among endoscopist, referring specialist, and GP. On the other hand, the rating of success by specialists and GPs was significantly lower than the endoscopist's evaluation. The endoscopist and GP were more at variance than the endoscopist and specialist. Above all, the GPs seemed to outweigh the burden against the benefits of treatment. Disagreement of the specialists and the GPs with the endoscopist about the outcome appeared to be related to unrealistic expectations, to a shift in presenting symptoms or to complications, misinterpreted as being laser-induced but mainly due to progression of disease.     

Underdiagnosis of Nocturnal Symptoms in Asthma in General Practice

Objective. To evaluate the prevalence of nocturnal symptoms in a large sample of asthmatic patients, and to assess the agreement between patients' complaints and general practitioners' (GPs') reports in primary care. Design. Cross-sectional survey involved 3,526 GPs and 751 specialists (pulmonologists and allergists) and included 13,493 patients with persistent asthma. Symptoms, treatment, and social and medical data were collected in real time by the patients and their GPs. Setting. France. Results. Prevalence of nocturnal symptoms was 60%. A total of 7,989 patients with nocturnal symptoms had complete data for both patients and GPs; 3,849 (48.1%) had perfect agreement between GP and their complaints for nocturnal symptoms (agreement group; [kappa = 1]); 3,376(42.2%) declared having no symptoms during the night, but these were detected by the GP during the visit (underestimated by patients and detected by GPs); 773(9.6%) declared having nocturnal symptoms, but these were not detected by GPs. Patients with a good agreement with their GP's opinion were significantly more frequently followed-up by a specialist than other patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions. Nocturnal symptoms appear to be underdeclared by patients. GPs should therefore systematically ask their patients about nocturnal symptoms to increase control of asthma and to adequately manage its treatment.     

Poor perceptions and expectations of asthma control: results of the International Control of Asthma Symptoms (ICAS) survey of patients and general practitioners.

AIMS: To assess current levels of asthma control and to identify barriers to optimal asthma management. METHODS: A survey was conducted of 802 asthma patients (via computer-aided telephone interviewing) and 809 general practitioners (GPs; via the internet) from the UK, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Australia. RESULTS: Over three-quarters (82%) of patients surveyed reported an absence of asthma control, with the vast majority (80%) experiencing subsequent lifestyle restrictions. Although most (58%) GPs questioned believed that total asthma control was possible, half (52%) agreed that their patients were not achieving best possible asthma control. CONCLUSIONS: Action is required to encourage patients to view their asthma more seriously and to be more proactive in reporting symptoms to their GP. These actions, coupled with greater prompting of patients by GPs about their asthma, should help to optimize asthma management.     

General practitioners' knowledge of and attitudes to inflammatory bowel disease

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease requiring long‐term management. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact for initial symptoms and flares. Thus we assessed GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of IBD. Methods: A state‐wide postal survey of GPs was performed collecting demographic details, practice and attitudes in IBD‐specific management and knowledge. Results: Of 1800 GPs surveyed in South Australia, 409 responded; 58% were male, 80% Australian trained and 73% practised in metropolitan areas. Most GPs (92%) reported seeing zero to five IBD patients per month. Overall, 37% of the GPs reported being generally ‘uncomfortable’ with IBD management. Specifically, they were only somewhat comfortable in providing/using maintenance therapy, steroid therapy or unspecified therapy for an acute flare. They were uncomfortable with the use of immunomodulators and biologicals (71 and 91% respectively). No GP reported never referring, referring sometimes (12%), often (34%) or always (55%). Most (87%) GPs rated their communication with private specialists positively; while only 32% were satisfied with support from public hospitals. Of concern, most (70%) monitored patients on immunosuppression on a case‐by‐case basis rather than by protocol. In multivariable analyses, GPs' IBD‐specific knowledge did not influence comfort with overall management, nor did knowledge influence GP comfort with any particular therapy. Conclusion: Individual GPs care for few IBD patients and have variable attitudes in their practice. Whether improvement can realistically be achieved given individual GP's paucity of patients is questionable. These data support the provision of better support and specific action plans for IBD patients.     

Can we improve the management of chronic obstructive respiratory disease? The example of asthma in adults.

SETTING: Zeralda health district, Algeria. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of asthma refresher courses on the knowledge, attitudes and practice of general practitioners (GPs) working in primary health centres (PHC); to improve the system of referral between the PHCs and the district reference centre; and to measure the impact of the intervention on the management of asthma patients. METHODS: Before and after study: situation analysis with an epidemiological survey in the general population and a study of the demand for care in three PHCs and an emergency department, three refresher training workshops for voluntary GPs and adoption of new consensual methods of collaboration. RESULTS: Despite a district asthma prevalence of 1.6%, patients were usually seen in emergency situations and sent to the district reference centre for follow-up. The refresher courses were attended by 56 GPs. Apart from improvements in knowledge, their practices and prescribing habits changed, with more beta-agonists (68.5% after vs. 12% before) and inhaled anti-inflammatories (52% vs. 0%), and less theophylline (2% vs. 55%), antibiotics (13% vs. 59%) and mucolytics (9% vs. 73.5%). The referral system was improved as follows: 69 health personnel were trained by GPs, recording and reporting forms designed during the workshops were implemented, essential emergency drugs were identified and collaboration between GPs and specialists at the reference centre was enhanced.     

Underdiagnosis of Nocturnal Symptoms in Asthma in General Practice

Objective. To evaluate the prevalence of nocturnal symptoms in a large sample of asthmatic patients, and to assess the agreement between patients' complaints and general practitioners' (GPs') reports in primary care. Design. Cross-sectional survey involved 3,526 GPs and 751 specialists (pulmonologists and allergists) and included 13,493 patients with persistent asthma. Symptoms, treatment, and social and medical data were collected in real time by the patients and their GPs. Setting. France. Results. Prevalence of nocturnal symptoms was 60%. A total of 7,989 patients with nocturnal symptoms had complete data for both patients and GPs; 3,849 (48.1%) had perfect agreement between GP and their complaints for nocturnal symptoms (agreement group; [kappa = 1]); 3,376(42.2%) declared having no symptoms during the night, but these were detected by the GP during the visit (underestimated by patients and detected by GPs); 773(9.6%) declared having nocturnal symptoms, but these were not detected by GPs. Patients with a good agreement with their GP's opinion were significantly more frequently followed-up by a specialist than other patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions. Nocturnal symptoms appear to be underdeclared by patients. GPs should therefore systematically ask their patients about nocturnal symptoms to increase control of asthma and to adequately manage its treatment.     

Part I. General practitioner-specialist relationship

This article is the first of a two-part series that seeks to explore the relationship and interaction between general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists. A historical account of the medical profession is given, beginning from the tripartite division (i.e. the physicians, surgeons or barbers and the apothecaries), the Apothecaries Act of 1815, and the Medical Act of 1858. An account is also given of factors that exacerbated the division and friction between GPs and specialists, and how general practice developed in Australia. The role of the GP is stated as the provision of primary care, preventive care, patient-centred care, continuing care, comprehensive care, and community-based care to individuals and their families. The role of the specialists on the other hand is that of a consultant to advise GPs who carry on the management after the patient leaves the specialist. The dynamics of the GP-specialist relationship are discussed in relation to power, interdependence, morale, public image, education and training, and support from the Colleges, and we conclude by discussing the importance of collaboration between professions.     

Referral and consultation in asthma and COPD: an exploration of pulmonologists' views

BACKGROUND: The burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on national healthcare systems is expected to increase substantially in future years. Referral guidelines for general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists may lead to more efficient use of healthcare facilities. We explored the prevailing views of pulmonologists regarding referral and once-only consultation in asthma and COPD, and compared these views with recently published transmural referral guidelines for GPs and pulmonologists. METHODS: Cross-sectional multiple case study. Twenty-nine Dutch pulmonologists working at non-university hospitals or specialised chest clinics participated in group discussion sessions. RESULTS: The outcome of the discussions and recently published referral guidelines for GPs and pulmonologists showed considerable similarity, but also some marked discrepancies. During the discussions, the main points of disagreement among the pulmonologists were: 1) should GPs or pulmonologists add long-acting beta2-agonists to asthma treatment regimens; 2) should the current cut-off point 'predicted FEV1 <50%' for referral of COPD patients be increased to 60 or 70%; and 3) should an annual exacerbation rate of two episodes a year be used as an undifferentiated referral criterion for COPD patients? For asthma, proposed back-referral (i.e. from pulmonologist to GP) criteria rested on: required dose of inhaled steroids, persistent need for long-acting beta2-agonists, duration of clinical stability and persistence of airway obstruction. Back-referral criteria for COPD rested on age, blood-gas abnormalities and ventilatory limitations. Primary care monitoring facilities and 'shared-care' constructions were considered to be facilitating conditions for back-referral. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study provided insights into how pulmonologists visualise a rational referral policy for patients with asthma or COPD. These insights can be taken into consideration in future revisions of referral and back-referral guidelines for GPs and pulmonologists.     

Comparison of the Asthma in America and Asthma Insight and Management surveys: did asthma burden and care improve in the United States between 1998 and 2009?

Significant changes in asthma treatment guidelines and therapies occurred between the period of time in which the Asthma in America (AIA) and Asthma Insight and Management (AIM) surveys were conducted: 1998 and 2009, respectively. This study compares asthma burden and management in 1998 and 2009. Both surveys were telephone based and conducted across the United States. The AIA survey included 2509 patients with asthma (aged <1 year to 89 years old), 512 physicians, and 1000 adults from the general population. The AIM survey included 2500 patients (aged ≥12 years), 309 physicians, and 1090 adults from the general population. Patient responses were weighted to match the entire population of U.S. patients with asthma. The impact of asthma burden and care on the general population and on asthma patients was slightly lower or unchanged in the AIM survey versus the AIA survey. Acute care use (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or other urgent care visits) was common in AIA (36%) and AIM (34%) surveys. Most physicians were aware of guidelines in AIA (90%) and AIM (96%), but fewer "always" followed them (AIA, 36%; AIM, 28%). Spirometry was often used to aid in diagnosis by asthma care specialists (AIA, 73%; AIM, 76%) but infrequently by nonsubspecialists (AIA, 27%; AIM, 38%). Most physicians prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for mild (AIA, 70%; AIM, 83%) or moderate (AIA, 89%; AIM, 83%) persistent asthma. In the AIM survey, 38% of specialists prescribed ICSs combined with a long-acting β2-agonist for moderate asthma. The state of U.S. asthma care and clinical outcomes changed little from 1998 to 2009.     

Patient satisfaction with healthcare in asthmatics and patients with COPD before and after patient education

Patient satisfaction with general practitioners (GP) and pulmonary outpatient clinics has not been previously compared in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in addition to the effect of patient education on this satisfaction. We randomly allocated 78 asthmatics and 62 patients with COPD after ordinary outpatient management to a control or an intervention group. Intervention consisted of educational group sessions and individual sessions administered by a trained nurse and physiotherapist. A self-management plan was developed. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was answered at baseline and at the 1-year follow-up. Before randomization, a higher proportion of asthmatics were satisfied with the overall handling of their disease by the outpatient clinic (86%) compared with their GPs (72%, P=0.027, chi2-test). Equal and high proportions of patients with COPD were satisfied with both their GPs (85%) and the outpatient clinic (87%) and in general seemed more satisfied with their GP than asthmatics (P=0.064). At the 1 year follow-up, 100% of the educated patients with COPD reported overall satisfaction with GPs compared with 78% in the control group (P=0.023), but not for asthmatics (75 and 78%, respectively, P=0.581). We conclude that before being given education, asthmatics are more satisfied with the pulmonary outpatient clinic than with GPs, regarding the overall handling of their disease. Patients with COPD seemed more satisfied with GPs than asthmatics. For patients with COPD, patient education seemed to improve overall patient satisfaction with GPs, but this was not true for asthmatics. At baseline, overall satisfaction with the outpatient clinic was so beneficial that we had little chance of detecting any improvement.     

A randomized controlled trial on office spirometry in asthma and COPD in standard general practice: data from spirometry in Asthma and COPD: a comparative evaluation Italian study

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether office spirometry by general practitioners (GPs) is feasible and may improve the diagnosis of asthma and COPD. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative trial was planned involving 57 Italian pulmonology centers and 570 GPs who had to enroll consecutive subjects aged 18 to 65 years with symptoms of asthma or COPD without a previous diagnosis. Patients were randomized 1:1 into two groups with an interactive voice responding system: conventional evaluation alone vs conventional evaluation and spirometry. Office spirometry was performed by GPs who were trained by reference specialists using a portable electronic spirometer (Spirobank Office; MIR; Rome, Italy). Diagnosis was confirmed by the reference specialist center in blind fashion. RESULTS: Seventy-four GPs complied to the trial. Of 333 patients enrolled, 136 nonrandom violators completed the protocol. Per-protocol analysis showed a concordant diagnosis between GPs and specialists in 78.6% of cases in the conventional evaluation-plus-spirometry group vs 69.2% in the conventional evaluation group (p = 0.35). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the respective percentages of concordant diagnosis were 57.9 and 56.7 (p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Office spirometry by GPs is feasible, but frequent protocol violation and inadequate sample size did not allow us to prove a significant advantage of office spirometry in improving the diagnosis of asthma and COPD in standard general practice as organized at present in Italy, thus reinforcing the need for close cooperation between GPs and specialists in respiratory medicine.     

Mortality in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Comparison of Patients Managed by Vascular Specialists and General Practitioners

BACKGROUND Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is undertreated by general practitioners (GPs). However, the impact of the suboptimal clinical management is unknown. OBJECTIVE To assess the mortality rate of PAD patients in relation to the type of physician who provides their care (GP or vascular specialist). DESIGN Prospective study. SETTING Primary care practice and academic vascular laboratory. PARTICIPANTS GP patients (n = 60) were those of the Peripheral Arteriopathy and Cardiovascular Events study (PACE). Patients managed by specialists (n = 82) were consecutive subjects with established PAD who were referred to our vascular laboratory during the enrolment period of the PACE study. MEASUREMENTS All-cause and cardiovascular mortality. RESULTS After 32 months of follow-up, specialist management was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01–0.34; p = .003) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.65; p = .020), after adjustment for patients’ characteristics. Specialists were more likely to use antiplatelet agents (93% vs 73%, p < .001), statins (62% vs 25%, p < .001) and beta blockers (28% vs 3%, p < .001). Survival differences between specialists and GPs disappeared once the use of pharmacotherapies was added to the proportional hazard model. The fully adjusted model showed that the use of statins was significantly associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–0.73, p = .034) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–0.71, p = .033). CONCLUSIONS Specialist management of patients with symptomatic PAD resulted in better survival than generalist management. This effect appears to be mainly caused by the more frequent use of effective medicines by specialists.     

Asthma management at the interface of general practice and hospital care

The aim of the study was to assess the management of patients hospitalised for asthma with regard to the recommendations of the German Airway League, and the communication between hospital doctors and general practitioners (GPs). All records of patients discharged with asthma or COPD (ICD9) between 1/1996 and 6/1998 were retrieved (n = 169) in one general hospital. All patients whose asthma had been known in admission and was given as a reason for hospitalisation in the discharge letter were selected (n = 93). Treatment prescribed by the patients' GPs before hospitalisation as well as diagnostic procedures and treatment in hospital and the recommendations in the discharge letter were reviewed. Additionally the GPs were questioned with case vignettes. Before hospitalisation, most patients had been treated with theophyllin (66 %) and inhaled betamimetics (62 %), only 44 % had received topical and 29 % oral steroids by their GP. In hospital, lung function assessment was performed in only 8 % of the patients and there was no monitoring of the peak flow. The most commonly prescribed drugs were theophyllin (94 %), mucolytics (94 %) and antibiotics (82 %). Half of the patients (47 %) were discharged without adequate anti-inflammatory baseline treatment. The discharge letters did not contain detailed recommendations on future asthma management. There seems to be room for improvement with regard to the implementation of the German Airway League's recommendations both in hospital and in general practice: Few patients received systemic or inhaled steroids, whereas theophyllin and antibiotics were prescribed routinely. In hospital, airway obstruction was neither measured initially nor monitored. Communication between hospital doctors and GPs seems to be insufficient.