Dataset Information

Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effectiveness, accessibility, and acceptability of a general practitioner with special interest service for skin problems compared with a hospital dermatology clinic.

Design

Randomised controlled trial.

Setting

General practitioner with special interest dermatology service and hospital dermatology clinic.

Participants

Adults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic and assessed by a consultant or the general practitioner with special interest service,. Suitable patients had non-urgent skin problems and had been identified from the referral letter as suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest.

Interventions

Participants were randomised in 2:1 ratio to receive management by a general practitioner with special interest or usual hospital outpatient care.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were disease related quality of life (dermatology life quality index) and improvement in patients' perception of access to services, assessed nine months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, preference for site of care, proportion of failed appointments, and waiting times to first appointment.

Results

49% of the participants were judged suitable for care by the general practitioner with special interest service. Of 768 patients eligible, 556 (72.4%) were randomised (354 to general practitioner with special interest, 202 to hospital outpatient care). After nine months, 422 (76%) were followed up. No noticeable differences were found between the groups in clinical outcome (median dermatology life quality index score = 1 both arms, ratio of geometric means 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.15). The general practitioner with special interest service was more accessible (difference between means on access scale 14, 11 to 19) and waited a mean of 40 (35 to 46) days less. Patients expressed slightly greater satisfaction with consultations with a general practitioner with special interest (difference in mean satisfaction score 4, 1 to 7), and at baseline and after nine months 61% said they preferred care at the service.

Conclusions

The general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology was more accessible and preferred by patients than hospital outpatient care, achieving similar clinical outcomes. Trial registration ISRCTN31962758.

SUBMITTER: Salisbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1315649 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.

Salisbury Chris C Noble Alison A Horrocks Sue S Crosby Zoe Z Harrison Viv V Coast Joanna J de Berker David D Peters Tim T

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20051206 7530

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effectiveness, accessibility, and acceptability of a general practitioner with special interest service for skin problems compared with a hospital dermatology clinic.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>General practitioner with special interest dermatology service and hospital dermatology clinic.<h4>Participants</h4>Adults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic and assessed by a consultant or the general practitioner with special interest ...[more]

PMID: 16332728

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChanging demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.MethodsA multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.ResultsMedian number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).ConclusionThe pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Project description:To assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.Randomised controlled trial.Northern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.Patients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.Primary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; ?-2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; ?-0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; ?-1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).GP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to lengthy wait times for specialist outpatient appointments, electronic consultation (eConsult) services have developed globally, providing asynchronous, secure and timely communication between general practitioner (GP) and specialist. This study aims to track adoption of a Queensland eConsultant service in two Australian Primary Health Networks (Western Queensland and Brisbane South) to understand key barriers and enablers to adoption and inform modification of the implementation strategy. METHODS: Our theory-informed mixed-methods evaluation assessed implementation between July 2020 and March 2022. Adoption and implementation activities were prospectively recorded in bespoke tracking spreadsheets with implementation activities coded against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies. Semi-structured interviews with GPs and stakeholders informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted to understand determinants of implementation. RESULTS: Of the 40 practices invited to take part in the eConsultant service, 20 (50%) enrolled. Of the 97 GPs who consented, 38 sent at least one Request for Advice (RFA) to the eConsultant with a total of 112 RFA sent. Implementation was predominantly guided by eight strategies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 GPs and 4 stakeholders (12 from rural/remote regions, 11 females and two sole practitioners). Interviewees felt the eConsultant service supported outpatient appointment avoidance and provided efficient, timely access to specialist support for GPs and their patients. Barriers identified to using eConsultant related to digital infrastructure, competing priorities, and keeping the service 'front of mind'. Key enablers identified were the relative advantage of eConsultant over other options, patient benefits and COVD-19 facilitating the use of digital technology.ConclusionsThis evaluation highlighted service enablers as well as user priorities for broader implementation. A focus on a well-integrated digital system and availability of a variety of eConsultant specialties are seen as key strategies to embedding the eConsultant option in GP advice processes in Australia.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients' satisfaction with their GPs.DesignA cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP.ParticipantsAdult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group.InterventionThe intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients' current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients' rehabilitation course.Outcome measures6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients' rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study.ResultsNo overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions.ConclusionsThis complex intervention aiming at improving GPs' services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Test effectiveness of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) on quality of life and depression outcomes for patients. DESIGN:Double-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING:General practices in Australia between 2007 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS:General practices were randomly allocated to the waitlist (n=37) or intervention (n=66) group, in a ratio of 1:2. A total of 2030 (1478 intervention; 552 waitlist) community-dwelling participants aged 75 years or older were recruited via 168 GPs (113 intervention; 55 waitlist). INTERVENTIONS:A practice-based academic detailing intervention led by a peer educator that included: (1) training in use of the GP assessment of cognition dementia screening instrument; (2) training in diagnosis and management based on Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Dementia Guidelines; (3) addressing GPs' barriers to dementia diagnosis; and (4) a business case outlining a cost-effective dementia assessment approach. OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome measures were patient quality of life and depression; secondary outcome measures were: (1) sensitivity and specificity of GP identification of dementia; (2) referral to medical specialists and/or support services; (3) patient satisfaction with care; and (4) carer quality of life, depression and satisfaction with care. RESULTS:The educational intervention had no significant effect on patient quality of life or depression scores after 12 months. There were however improvements in secondary outcome measures including sensitivity of GP judgement of dementia (p=0.002; OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.92 to 18.73), satisfaction with GP communication for all patients (p=0.024; mean difference 2.1, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.93) and for patients with dementia (p=0.007; mean difference 7.44, 95% CI 2.02 to 12.86) and enablement of carers (p=0.0185; mean difference 24.77, 95% CI 4.15 to 45.40). CONCLUSION:Practice-based academic detailing did not improve patient quality of life or depression scores but did improve detection of dementia in primary care and patient satisfaction with GP communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12607000117415; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundStrengthening the coordination, continuity and intersectoral cooperation for cancer patients' during cancer treatment is being underlined by international guidelines and research. General practitioners have assumed a growing role in the cancer patient disease trajectory because of their roles as coordinators and the consistent health provider. However, general practitioners are challenged in providing support for cancer patients both during treatment and in the survivorship phase. General practitioners reported barriers are lack of timely and relevant communication from the oncologist and limited knowledge to guidelines, as well as lack of trust from patients. Therefore, the current study will examine whether a shared video-based consultation between the cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist can ease general' challenges and thereby enhance the patient-centeredness for the cancer patients and their perception of intersectoral cooperation and continuity.MethodsThe study is designed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial for patients starting chemotherapy at the Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt Hospital, Denmark who are listed with a general practitioner in the Region of Southern Denmark. We intend to include 278 adults diagnosed with colorectal, breast, lung, gynecologic or prostate cancer. The intervention group will receive the "Partnership intervention" which consists of one or more video-consultations between the cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist. The consultations are estimated to last between 10 and 20 min. The specific aims of the consultation are, summary of the patient trajectory, sharing of knowledge regarding comorbidity, psychosocial resources and needs, physical well-being, medicine, anxiety and depression symptoms, spouses, workability and late complication and side-effects to the cancer treatment.DiscussionVideo-based consultation that brings the cancer patient, the general practitioner and the oncologist together in the early phase of treatment may facilitate a sense of partnership that is powerful enough to improve the patient's perception of intersectoral cooperation, continuity of cancer care and health-related quality of life.Trial registrationClincialTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02716168 . Date of registration: 03.03.2016.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets