Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) select few patients for specialist investigation. Having selected a patient, the GP writes a referral letter which serves primarily to convey concerns about the patient and offer background information. Referral letters to specialists sometimes provide an inadequate amount of information. The content of referral letters to colorectal surgeons can now be scored based on the views of GPs about the ideal content of referral letters. AIM: To determine if written feedback about the contents of GP referral letters mediated by local peers was acceptable to GPs and how this feedback influenced the content and variety of their referrals. DESIGN: A non-randomised control trial. SETTING: GPs in North Nottinghamshire. METHOD: In a controlled trial, 26 GPs were offered written feedback about the documented contents of their colorectal referral letters over 1 year. The feedback was designed and mediated by two nominated local GPs. The contents of referral letters were measured in the year before and 6 months after feedback. GPs were asked about the style of the feedback. The contents of referral letters and the proportion of patients with organic pathology were compared for the feedback GPs and other local GPs who could be identified as having used the same hospital for their referrals in the period before and after feedback. RESULTS: All GPs declared the method of feedback to be acceptable but raised concerns about their own performance, and some were upset by the experience. None withdrew from the project. There was a difference of 7.1 points (95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 12.2) in the content scores between the feedback group and the controls after adjusting for baseline differences between the groups. Of the GPs who referred to the same hospital before and after feedback, the feedback GPs referred more patients with organic pathology than other local colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs welcome feedback about the details appearing on their referral letters, although peer comparisons may not always lead to changes in practice. However, in some cases feedback improves the content of GP referral letters and may also impact on the type of patients referred for investigation by specialists.     

Chest radiography in general practice: indications, diagnostic yield and consequences for patient management

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography (CXR) is frequently performed in Western societies. There is insufficient knowledge of its diagnostic value in terms of changes in patient management decisions in primary care. AIM: To assess the influence of CXR on patient management in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventy-eight GPs and three general hospitals in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients (n = 792) aged > or =18 years referred by their GPs for CXR were included. The main outcome was change in patient management assessed by means of questionnaires filled in by GPs before and after CXR. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 57.3+/-16.2 years and 53% were male. Clinically relevant abnormalities were found in 24% of the CXRs. Patient management changed in 60% of the patients following CXR. Main changes included: fewer referrals to a medical specialist (from 26 to 12%); reduction in initiation or change in therapy (from 24 to 15%); and more frequent reassurance (from 25 to 46%). However, this reassurance was not perceived as such in a quarter of these patients. A change in patient management occurred significantly more frequently in patients with complaints of cough (67%), those who exhibited abnormalities during physical examination (69%), or those with a suspected diagnosis of pneumonia (68%). CONCLUSION: Patient management by the GP changed in 60% of patients following CXR. CXR substantially reduced the number of referrals and initiation or change in therapy, and more patients were reassured by their GP. Thus, CXR is an important diagnostic tool for GPs and seems a cost-effective diagnostic test.     

GP referral of patients with osteoarthritis for consideration of total joint replacement: a longitudinal study

Background

Individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) are referred to orthopaedic surgeons if considered by their GP as potential candidates for total joint replacement (TJR). It is not clear which patients end up having this surgery.

Aim

The aim of the study was to investigate symptom variation in individuals with OA newly referred by GPs to an orthopaedic surgeon for consideration for TJR, and to determine the predictors of having this procedure.

Design and setting

A longitudinal study of patients at a regional orthopaedic centre with follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months by postal questionnaire.

Method

GP referrals of patients with OA to orthopaedic surgeons were consecutively sampled. Of the 431 eligible patients, 257 (59.6%) were recruited. Validated measurement tools were used to measure pain, physical functioning, severity of OA, and health-related quality of life.

Results

Over half the participants were in constant pain, taking pain medication more than once per day. Only 67 of 134 (50%) hip and 40 of 123 (33%) knee patients had a TJR within 12 months. Those who had a replacement had been diagnosed with OAfora shorter time, reported more frequent pain, were more likely to use a walking stick, and had worse pain, stiffness, and physical functioning.

Conclusion

Many individuals considered for TJR ultimately may not have surgery, and more effective strategies of management need to be developed between primary and secondary care to achieve better outcomes and to improve quality of care.     

Illness behaviour and antibiotic prescription in patients with respiratory tract symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Although the vast majority of respiratory tract symptoms are self-limiting, many patients visit their GP for these symptoms and antibiotics are over-prescribed. AIM: To explore determinants of patients visiting GPs for recent cough, sore throat, or earache; for being prescribed antibiotics; and for patients' satisfaction with visiting the GP. Design of the study: Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2) with a health interview and an additional questionnaire. SETTING: A total of 7057 adult patients of 163 GPs in the Netherlands. METHOD: Characteristics of patients and GPs as well as morbidity data were derived from the DNSGP-2 and a health interview. Characteristics of the symptoms, GPs' management and patients' satisfaction were measured by an additional written questionnaire. Data were analysed by means of multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: About 40% of the responders (n = 1083) reported cough, sore throat, or earache in the 2 weeks preceding the interview and, of them, 250 visited their GP. Of this latter group, 97 patients were prescribed antibiotics. Apart from non-medical reasons, relevant medical factors played an important role in deciding to visit the GP. Smokers and patients with cardiac disease or diabetes mellitus were not especially inclined to see their GP. Smoking behaviour, fever, and views on respiratory tract symptoms and antibiotics of patients and GPs were associated with being prescribed antibiotics. Patients' perception of having been carefully examined was associated with their satisfaction, while receiving antibiotics was not. CONCLUSION: GPs should inform patients with clear elevated risk when to visit their GP in cases of cough, sore throat, or earache. There is still a need for GPs and patients to be better informed about the limited significance of single inflammation signs (for example, fever and green phlegm) as an indication for antibiotics. Careful examination of the patient contributes to patient satisfaction.     

Characteristics of children consulting for cough, sore throat, or earache.

BACKGROUND: GPs are often consulted for respiratory tract symptoms in children. AIM: To explore characteristics of children, their parents, and their GPs that are correlated with consulting a GP for cough, sore throat, or earache. DESIGN OF STUDY: Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2) with a health interview and an additional questionnaire. SETTING: Children aged 0-17 years registered with 122 GPs in Dutch general practice. METHOD: Characteristics of patients and their GPs were derived from the DNSGP-2 health interview and a questionnaire, respectively. Characteristics of the illness symptoms and GP consultation were acquired by means of an additional questionnaire. Data were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of all children who completed the questionnaire, 550 reported cough, sore throat, or earache in the 2 weeks preceding the interview with 147 of them consulting their GP. Young children more frequently consulted the GP for respiratory symptoms, as did children with fever, longer duration of symptoms, those reporting their health to be 'poor to good', and living in an urban area. When parents were worried, and when a child or their parents were cued by someone else, the GP was also consulted more often. GP-related determinants were not associated with GP consultation by children. CONCLUSION: This study emphasises the importance of establishing the reasons behind children with respiratory tract symptoms consulting their GP. When GPs are aware of possible determinants of the decision to consult a GP, more appropriate advice and reassurance can be given regarding these respiratory symptoms, which are generally self-limiting.     

Evaluation of a cognitive behavioural programme for rehabilitating patients with chronic pain.

The aim of this prospective longitudinal study was to evaluate an inpatient cognitive behavioural pain management programme for patients with chronic pain. A physical and psychological assessment of patients was carried out before and after treatment, and at one and six months follow up. A total of 212 patients with disabling chronic pain of mean duration 10.5 years, for whom no further medical or psychiatric treatment was appropriate or available, were admitted; their mean age was 50 years and 65% were women. The four week programme was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of two psychologists, a physiotherapist, nurse, occupational therapist and anaesthetist. The main components of therapy included: education, teaching behavioural and cognitive skills, a stretch and exercise programme, medication reduction, goal setting and pacing, and relaxation training. Outcome measures assessed quality of life, physical performance (for example walking speed), pain intensity and distress, depression severity and confidence. Assessment immediately after treatment revealed significant improvements on all measures. Improvements were well maintained at six month follow up. Cognitive behavioural treatment can be of value in improving the day-to-day functioning and quality of life of patients with chronic pain for whom conventional medical treatments have apparently failed.     

A qualitative study exploring how GPs decide to prescribe antidepressants

BACKGROUND: To influence GPs' prescribing policies and practices it is necessary to have an understanding of how they make decisions. The limited evidence available suggests that not only do GPs find making decisions about diagnosing and prescribing for depression problematic, but that decisions are severely constrained by lack of resources. As a result, it might be thought that GPs, in line with current guidelines, will inevitably prescribe antidepressants for patients presenting with symptoms of anxiety and depression. This study examines the accuracy of this view. AIM: To explore how GPs decide to prescribe antidepressants. DESIGN: Focus groups with self-selected GPs. SETTING: Bristol and the surrounding district. METHOD: Qualitative study of five focus groups with 27 GPs. RESULTS: GPs' decisions about whether an antidepressant would be an appropriate form of management are shaped by a set of rules based on 'clinical' and 'social' criteria. The preferred strategy is to 'wait and see', but antidepressants are prescribed earlier when symptoms are perceived to be persistent, unresolving, severe and 'classic'. Decisions to prescribe are also shaped by organisational constraints of time, lack of accessible alternative management options, cost of prescribing and perceived patient attitude. CONCLUSION: The evidence from this study provides little support for the view that GPs take the easy option of prescribing antidepressants in the face of uncertainty. Evidence suggests that the GPs' prescribing was cautious, which indicates that GPs would support the initiative of recent draft guidelines regarding watchful waiting. This guidance, however, needs to be clear about what constitutes mild depression and address the question of prescribing to patients who are experiencing social adversity. Furthermore, alternatives to antidepressants such as counselling would need to be readily and equitably accessible. In addition, GPs need to be convinced that alternatives to antidepressants are at least as effective for patients with so-called 'mild depression'.     

Psychological distress and somatisation as prognostic factors in patients with musculoskeletal illness in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal illness is a common cause of absenteeism from work, workers' compensation, and disability retirement, and accounts for 9.3% to 17% of patient contacts in general practice. To understand the increase in self-reported musculoskeletal illness and to improve treatment and prevention, it is important to know which factors to target when dealing with these patients. AIM: To investigate whether the prognosis for patients with musculoskeletal illness referred to physiotherapy from general practice can be predicted by the presence of psychological distress and somatisation identified by a general practitioner (GP) and standard questionnaires. METHOD: A multi-practice survey based on questionnaires (index and three-month follow-up). Nine hundred and five consecutive patients referred to physiotherapy from 124 different general practices in Denmark were included. Outcome measures were physical health change, sick leave, patient self-rated improvement, and change in use of medication. RESULTS: Psychological distress and somatisation rated by both GPs and standard questionnaires acted with almost no exception as significant predictors of all four outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Psychological distress and somatisation are important factors when considering preventive initiatives and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal illness in general practice.     

Blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients: clinical performance of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The blood pressure of many treated hypertensive patients remains above recommended target levels. This discrepancy may be related to general practitioners' (GPs') actions. AIM: To assess clinical performance of GPs in blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients and to explore the influence of patient and GP characteristics on clinical performance. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional study conducted on 195 GPs with invitations to participate made via bulletins and by letter. SETTING: One hundred and thirty-two practices in the southern half of The Netherlands from November 1996 to April 1997. METHOD: Performance criteria were selected from Dutch national hypertension guidelines for general practice. GPs completed self-report forms immediately after follow-up visits of hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive medication. RESULTS: The GPs recorded 3526 follow-up visits. In 63% of these consultations the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 90 mmHg or above. The median performance rates of the GPs were less than 51% for most of the recommended actions, even at a DBP of > or = 100 mmHg. Performance of non-pharmacological actions increased gradually with increasing DBP; prescribing an increase in antihypertensive medication and making a follow-up appointment scheduled within six weeks rose steeply at a DBP of > or = 100 mmHg. Patient and GP characteristics contributed little to clinical performance. Action performance rates varied considerably between GPs. CONCLUSION: GPs seem to target their actions at a DBP of below 100 mmHg, whereas guidelines recommend targeting at a DBP of below 90 mmHg.     

An exploration of the value of the personal doctor-patient relationship in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Within the context of general practice, continuity of care creates an opportunity for a personal doctor-patient relationship to develop which has been associated with significant benefits for patients and general practitioners (GPs). Continuity of care is, however, threatened by trends in the organisational development of primary health care in the United Kingdom and its intrinsic role within general practice is currently the subject of debate. AIMS: To determine how many patients report having a personal doctor and when this is most valued, to compare the value of a personal doctor-patient relationship with that of convenience, and to relate these findings to a range of patient, GP, and practice variables. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross sectional postal questionnaire study. SETTING: Nine hundred and ninety-six randomly selected adult patients from a stratified random sample of 18 practices and 284 GP principals in Oxfordshire. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with patients and GPs were conducted and used to derive a parallel patient and GP questionnaire. Each patient (100 from each practice) was invited to complete a questionnaire to evaluate their experience and views concerning personal care. All GP principals currently practising in Oxfordshire were sent a similar questionnaire, which also included demographic variables. RESULTS: Overall, 75% of patients reported having at least one personal GP. The number of patients reporting a personal GP in each practice varied from 53% to 92%. Having a personal doctor-patient relationship was highly valued by patients and GPs, in particular for more serious, psychological and family issues when 77-88% of patients and 80-98% of GPs valued a personal relationship more than a convenient appointment. For minor illness it had much less value. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and GPs particularly value a personal doctor-patient relationship for more serious or for psychological problems. Whether a patient has a personal GP is associated with their perception of its importance and with factors which create an opportunity for a relationship to evolve.     

Low back pain in general practice: reported management and reasons for not adhering to the guidelines in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for the management of low back pain have been published in the past decade, there is potential for further improvement in back pain care. AIM: To document the management of non-specific low back pain by general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands, to determine how this management of care is related to patient and physician factors, and to explore possible reasons for not adhering to the guidelines. METHOD: A prospective study was set up in which 57 GPs in 30 general practices completed a computerised questionnaire after each consultation for low back pain during a four-month period. RESULTS: Of 1640 back pain contacts, 1180 referred to non-specific low back pain. Diagnostic tests were ordered in 2% of first consultations and in 7% of follow-up consultations within one episode. The advice to stay active despite pain was given in 76% and 69% of these cases respectively. Patients were prescribed an analgesic in 53% and 41% of cases respectively (mainly NSAIDs [80%]). Patients were referred to a physiotherapist in 22% of first and in 50% of follow-up consultations. Older patients were physically examined less often, prescribed analgesics more often, and were told less often that staying active could benefit them. The advice to remain active was omitted more often when symptoms lasted longer. Only a small part of the variance in management was accounted for by patient characteristics or by differences between practices. CONCLUSION: The management of low back pain met the guidelines to a large extent. Management decisions were often related to characteristics in which the guidelines lack differentiation. Important reasons for non-adherence were perceived patients' preferences. Further implementation of guidelines will be difficult unless doctors' and patients' views are more explicitly known.     

Patients' involvement in decisions about medicines: GPs' perceptions of their preferences.

BACKGROUND: Patients vary in their desire to be involved in decisions about their care. AIM: To assess the accuracy and impact of GPs' perceptions of their patients' desire for involvement. DESIGN OF STUDY: Consultation-based study. SETTING: Five primary care centres in south London. METHOD: Consecutive patients completed decision-making preference questionnaires before and after consultation. Eighteen GPs completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the study and reported their perceptions of patients' preferences after each consultation. Patients' satisfaction was assessed using the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale. Analyses were conducted in 190 patient-GP pairs that identified the same medicine decision about the same main health problem. RESULTS: A total of 479 patients participated (75.7% of those approached). Thirty-nine per cent of these patients wanted their GPs to share the decision, 45% wanted the GP to be the main (28%) or only (17%) decision maker regarding their care, and 16% wanted to be the main (14%) or only (2%) decision maker themselves. GPs accurately assessed patients' preferences in 32% of the consultations studied, overestimated patients' preferences for involvement in 45%, and underestimated them in 23% of consultations studied. Factors protective against GPs underestimating patients' preferences were: patients preferring the GP to make the decision (odds ratio [OR] 0.2 per point on the five-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1 to 0.4), and the patient having discussed their main health problem before (OR 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.9). Patients' educational attainment was independently associated with GPs underestimation of preferences. CONCLUSION: GPs' perceptions of their patients' desire to be involved in decisions about medicines are inaccurate in most cases. Doctors are more likely to underestimate patients' preferred level of involvement when patients have not consulted about their condition before.     

Diagnostic classification in patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis: physicians' judgement or a decision rule?

Background

Clinical decision rules can aid in referral decisions for ultrasonography in patients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but physicians are not always convinced of their usefulness and rely on their own judgement.

Aim

To compare the performance of a clinical decision rule with the probability of DVT presence as estimated by GPs.

Design of study

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Primary care practices in The Netherlands.

Method

GPs (n = 300) estimated the probability of the presence of DVT (range 0–100%) and calculated the score for the clinical decision rule in 1028 consecutive patients with suspected DVT. The clinical decision rule uses a threshold of three points and so, for the GP estimates, thresholds were introduced at 10% and 20%. If scores were below these estimates, it was not considered necessary to refer patients for further examination. Differences between the clinical decision rule and the GP estimates were calculated; this is discrimination (c-statistic) and classification of patients.

Results

Data of 1002 patients were eligible for analysis. DVT was observed in 136 (14%) patients. Both the clinical decision rule and GP estimates had good discriminative power (c-statistic of 0.80 and 0.82 respectively). Fewer patients were referred when using the clinical decision rule compared with a referral decision based on GP estimates: 51% versus 79% and 65% (thresholds at 10% and 20% respectively). Both strategies missed a similar and low proportion of patients who did have DVT (range 1.4–2.0%).

Conclusion

In patients suspected of DVT both GP estimates and a clinical decision rule can safely discriminate in patients with and without DVT. However, fewer patients are referred for ultrasonography when GPs rely on a clinical decision rule to guide their decision making.     

Examining the variation in GPs’ referral practice: a cross-sectional study of GPs’ reasons for referral

Background

There is a large variation in referral rates to secondary care among GPs, which is partly unexplained.

Aim

To explore associations between reasons for referral to secondary care and patient, GP, and healthcare characteristics.

Design and setting

A cross-sectional study in Northern Norway.

Method

Data were derived from 44 (42%) of 104 randomly selected GPs between 2008 and 2010. GPs scored the relevance of nine predefined reasons for 595 referrals from 4350 consecutive consultations on a four-level categorical scale. Associations were examined by multivariable ordered and multivariable multilevel logistic regression analyses.

Results

Medical necessity was assessed as a relevant reason in 93% of the referrals, 43.7% by patient preference, 27.5% to avoid overlooking anything, and 14.6% to reassure the patient. The higher the referral rates, the more frequently the GPs referred to avoid overlooking anything. Female GPs referred to reassure the patient and due to perceived deficient medical knowledge significantly more often than male GPs. However, perceived easy accessibility of specialists was significantly less frequently given as a reason for referral by female GPs compared with male GPs. When the GPs scored the referrals to be of lesser medical necessity, male GPs referred significantly more frequently than female GPs to reassure the patient due to patient preference and perceived deficient medical knowledge.

Conclusion

There are striking differences in reasons for referral between Norwegian male and female GPs and between GPs with high and low referral rates, which reflects difficulties in handling professional uncertainty. Referring to reassure the patients, especially when referrals are less medically necessary, may reflect consideration and acquiescence towards the patients.     

Exploring factors associated with patients'' satisfaction with medication change: a questionnaire survey.

The recent drive to encourage general practitioners (GPs) to rationalise their prescribing has implications for patients who may have their medication changed. A postal survey of such patients was conducted and it wasfound that 65% were at least reasonably satisfied with the way theyfound out about changes in their medication. Logistic analysis showed that patients were more satisfied when they had been told about the change by a GP or a pharmacist or by a letterfrom the practice.     

Evaluation of the impact of two educational interventions on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that primary care should become more involved in providing genetic services, such as basic risk assessment, to enable patients with a moderate/high risk to be referred and those with a low risk to receive reassurance and advice from their general practitioner (GP). However, GPs currently lack knowledge and confidence in this area. AIM: To investigate the effect of an in-practice educational session and information pack on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: GP principals in 170 practices in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. Of the 688 GPs, 426 (62%) participated. METHOD: Practices were randomised either to Group A (receiving an inpractice educational session plus information pack), Group B (receiving an information pack alone), or Group C (receiving neither an educational session nor a pack). The main study outcome was the proportion of GPs making the correct referral decision on at least five out of six family history vignettes. A secondary outcome was GPs' reported confidence in managing patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, measured by a score that was generated by combining responses to four questions. RESULTS: There was a 40% (95% CI = 30-50%, P < 0.001) improvement in the proportion of GPs who made the correct referral decision on at least five out of the six vignettes in Group A (111/140 [79%]) compared with Group C (controls) (63/162 [39%]), and a 42% (95% CI = 31-52%, P < 0.001) improvement in Group B (100/124 [81%]) compared with the control group. There was a trend in reported confidence in the management of individuals with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer from a mean confidence score of 2.3 in Group A to 2.0 in Group B and 1.5 in Group C (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Providing GPs with an information pack significantly improved referral decisions regarding patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Although extremely well received, an in-house educational session produced no additional improvements. There were, however, greater levels of reported confidence in the group who received the educational session in addition to the information pack.     

General practitioners' selection of patients for treatment in community psychiatric services

In a Danish community psychiatric service the patients referred from general practitioners (GPs) to the community psychiatric service (CPS) are compared with matched individuals with conspicuous psychiatric morbidity treated in general practice only. The psychopathology of the referred patients is more severe, as estimated by two different methods. They make fewer social contacts and their work situations are unfavourable. It was found that to a great extent the GPs refer their patients with mental disorders to the CPS so that the 'filter' between the GP and the CPS is very permeable. Of the patients treated by the GPs only (the matched group), no more than 54% were assessed by a psychiatrist as psychiatric 'cases'. Psychopathology thus only partly determines the GPs' assessment of psychiatric 'caseness', in which social impairment plays an important part. The GPs diagnose more mental disorder than the psychiatrists, possibly because of an intimate acquaintance with the anamnesis.