Dataset Information

Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Few patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral.

Methods

A cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. The main outcome measure was the proportion of cases with severe diverticular disease, cancer or precancerous lesions and inflammatory bowel disease in those referred by each group. A secondary outcome was a referral letter quality score. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify key themes relating to the use of the software

Results

From 150 invitations, 44 practices were recruited with a total list size of 265,707. There were 716 consecutive referrals recorded over a six-month period, for which a diagnosis was available for 514. In the combined software arms 14% (37/261) had significant pathology, compared with 19% (49/253) in the non-software arms, relative risk 0.73 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.15). In the combined educational outreach arms 15% (38/258) had significant pathology compared with 19% (48/256) in the non-educational arms, relative risk 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.24). Pro forma practices documented better assessment of patients at referral.

Conclusion

There was a lack of evidence that either intervention increased the proportion of patients with organic pathology among those referred. The interactive software did improve the amount of information relayed in referral letters although we were unable to confirm if this made a significant difference to patients or their health care providers. The potential value of either intervention may have been diminished by their limited uptake within the context of a cluster randomised clinical trial. A number of lessons were learned in this trial of novel innovations.

SUBMITTER: Jiwa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1635053 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice.

Jiwa Moyez M Skinner Paul P Coker Akinoso Olujimi AO Shaw Lindsey L Campbell Michael J MJ Thompson Joanne J

BMC family practice 20061102

<h4>Background</h4>Few patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral.<h4>Methods</h4>A cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. ...[more]

PMID: 17078894

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Work-related Mental Health Conditions in General Practice (the Guideline) was published in 2019. The objective of this trial is to implement the Guideline in general practice.Trial designImplementing work-related Mental health conditions in general PRacticE is a hybrid III, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial undertaken in Australia. Its primary aim is to assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention on the implementation of the Guideline in general practice. Secondary aims are to assess patient health and work outcomes, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the trial, and to develop a plan for sustainability.MethodsA total of 86 GP clusters will be randomly allocated either to the intervention arm, where they will receive a complex intervention comprising academic detailing, enrolment in a community of practice and resources, or to the control arm, where they will not receive the intervention. GP guideline concordance will be assessed at baseline and 9 months using virtual simulated patient scenarios. Patients who meet the eligibility criteria (>18years, employed, and receiving care from a participating GP for a suspected or confirmed work-related mental health condition) will be invited to complete surveys about their health and work participation and provide access to their health service use data. Data on health service use and work participation compensation claim data will be combined with measures of guideline concordance and patient outcomes to inform an economic evaluation. A realist evaluation will be conducted to inform the development of a plan for sustainability.ResultsWe anticipate that GPs who receive the intervention will have higher guideline concordance than GPs in the control group. We also anticipate that higher concordance will translate to better health and return-to-work outcomes for patients, as well as cost-savings to society.ConclusionsThe trial builds on a body of work defining the role of GPs in compensable injury, exploring their concerns, and developing evidence-based guidelines to address them. Implementation of these guidelines has the potential to deliver improvements in GP care, patient health, and return-to-work outcomes.Trial registrationACTRN12620001163998 , November 2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing attention on functional assessments in medical and vocational rehabilitation requires a focus change for the general practitioners (GP) into paying attention to patient resources, possibilities and coping instead of symptoms, problems and limitations. The GPs report difficulties in performing the requested explicit functional assessments. The purpose of this study was to implement a structured method in general practice for assessing functional ability in persons with long-term sick leave. The study aim was to evaluate intervention effects on important GP parameters; knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy towards functional assessments and knowledge about patient work factors.MethodsFifty-seven GPs were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. The intervention group GPs attended an introductory one-day work-shop and implemented structured functional assessments during an eight months intervention period. GP knowledge, GP attitudes, and GP self-efficacy towards functional assessments, as well as GP knowledge of patient work factors, were collected before, after and six months after the intervention period started. Evaluation score-sheets were filled in by both the intervention GPs and their patients immediately after the consultation to evaluate the GPs' knowledge of patient work factors.ResultsThe intervention GPs reported increased knowledge (B: 0.56, 95% CI (0.19, 0.91)) and self-efficacy (B: 0.90, 95% CI (0.53, 1.26)) towards functional assessments, and increased knowledge about their patients' workplace (B: 0.75, 95% CI (0.35, 1.15)) and perceived stressors (B: 0.55, 95% CI (0.23, 0.88)) with lasting effects at the second follow-up. No intervention effect was seen in relation to GP attitudes. Both before and after the intervention, the GPs were most informed about physical stressors, and less about mental and work organisational stressors (Guttman's reproducibility coefficient: 0.95 and 1.00). After the consultation, both the intervention GPs and their patients reported that the GPs' knowledge about patient work factors had increased (GP B: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.78); patient B: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.66)).ConclusionIntroducing and implementing structured functional assessments in general practice made the GPs capable to assess functional ability of their patients in a structured manner. Intervention effects of increased GP knowledge and GP self-efficacy sustained at the second follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting.AimThis study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation.Methods/designThis study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.

Project description:Guidelines are often slowly adapted into clinical practice. However, actively supporting healthcare professionals in evidence-based treatment may speed up guideline implementation. Danish low back pain (LBP) guidelines focus on primary care treatment of LBP, to reduce referrals from primary care to secondary care. The primary aim of this project was to reduce secondary care referral within 12 weeks by a multifaceted implementation strategy (MuIS).In a cluster randomised design, 189 general practices from the North Denmark Region were invited to participate. Practices were randomised (1:1) and stratified by practice size to MuIS (28 practices) or a passive implementation strategy (PaIS; 32 practices). Included were patients with LBP aged 18 to 65 years who were able to complete questionnaires, had no serious underlying pathology, and were not pregnant. We developed a MuIS including outreach visits, quality reports, and the STarT Back Tool for subgrouping patients with LBP. Both groups were offered the usual dissemination of guidelines, guideline-concordant structuring of the medical record, and a new referral opportunity for patients with psycho-social problems. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary and secondary outcomes pertained to the patient, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare sector perspective. Patients and the assessment of outcomes were blinded. Practices and caregivers delivering the interventions were not blinded.Between January 2013 and July 2014, 60 practices were included, of which 54 practices (28 MuIS, 26 PaIS) included 1101 patients (539 MuIS, 562 PaIS). Follow-up data for the primary outcome were available on 100 % of these patients. Twenty-seven patients (5.0 %) in the MuIS group were referred to secondary care vs. 59 patients (10.5 %) in the PaIS group. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was 0.52 [95 % CI 0.30 to 0.90; p?=?0.020]. The MuIS was cost-saving £-93.20 (£406.51 vs. £499.71 per patient) after 12 weeks. Conversely, the MuIS resulted in less satisfied patients after 52 weeks (AOR 0.50 [95 % CI 0.31 to 0.81; p?=?0.004]).Using a MuIS changed general practice referral behaviour and was cost effective, but patients in the MuIS group were less satisfied. This study supports the application of a MuIS when implementing guidelines.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01699256.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing. METHODS:RAPiD is a 12-month partial factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in NHS General Dental Practices across Scotland. Its aim is to compare the effectiveness of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) strategies for the translation into practice of SDCEP recommendations on antibiotic prescribing. The trial uses routinely collected electronic healthcare data in five aspects of its design in order to: identify the study population; apply eligibility criteria; carry out stratified randomisation; generate the trial intervention; analyse trial outcomes. Eligibility was determined on contract status and a minimum level of recent NHS treatment provision. All eligible dental practices in Scotland were simultaneously randomised at baseline either to current audit practice or to an intervention group. Randomisation was stratified by single-handed/multi-handed practices. General dental practitioners (GDPs) working at intervention practices will receive individualised graphical representations of their antibiotic prescribing rate from the previous 14 months at baseline and an update at six months. GDPs could not be blinded to their practice allocation. Intervention practices were further randomised using a factorial design to receive feedback with or without: a health board comparator; a supplementary text-based intervention; additional feedback at nine months. The primary outcome is the total antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 courses of treatment over the year following delivery of the baseline intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation will apply theory-based approaches using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs. DISCUSSION:RAPiD will provide a robust evaluation of A&F in dentistry in Scotland. It also demonstrates that linked administrative datasets have the potential to be used efficiently and effectively across all stages of an randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:Background:Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary care offices geared toward frontline providers and office staff. Methods:Ten primary care practices were awarded small community grants to implement an SBIRT program in their location. Each practice chose the conditions for which they would screen, the screening tools, and how they would provide brief intervention and referral to treatment within their setting. An evaluation team communicated with each practice throughout the process, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to SBIRT success. Using the editing method, the qualitative data were analyzed and key strategies for success are detailed for implementing SBIRT in primary care. Results:The SBIRT program practices included primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, school-based health centers, and a safety-net emergency department. Conditions screened for included alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, child safety, and tobacco use. Across practices, 49,964 patients were eligible for screening and 36,394 pre-screens and 21,635 full screens were completed. From the qualitative data, eight best practices for primary care SBIRT are described: Have a practice champion; Utilize an interprofessional team; Define and communicate the details of each SBIRT step; Develop relationships with referral partners; Institute ongoing SBIRT training; Align SBIRT with the primary care office flow; Consider using a pre-screening instrument, when available; and Integrate SBIRT into the electronic health record. Conclusions and implications:SBIRT is an effective tool that can empower primary care providers to identify and treat patients with substance use and mental health problems before costly symptoms emerge. Using the pragmatic best practices we describe, primary care providers may improve their ability to successfully create, implement, and sustain SBIRT in their practices.

Project description:IntroductionManaging patients with multiple conditions (multimorbidity) is a major challenge for healthcare systems internationally, particularly in older patients. Multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy increase treatment burden and the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and both are complex to manage in primary care. Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into general practice teams could improve medication management for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Building on findings from a non-randomised, uncontrolled General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) feasibility study conducted in Irish primary care, the aim of this study is to conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the GPP study, to assess feasibility, intervention impact, costs and appropriateness of continuing to a definitive cRCT.Methods and analysisThis pilot cRCT will involve 8 general practitioner (GP) practices and 120 patients. Practices will identify and recruit patients aged ≥65 years, who are taking ≥10 regular medications. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control after baseline data collection. Intervention practices will have a pharmacist integrated within their service, working with GPs, patients and practice staff to optimise prescribing and other medication-related activities. Control practices will provide standard GP care. The primary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, uptake of medication reviews and study retention. For the primary clinical outcome, the number of potentially inappropriate prescribing incidences per patient will be collected. Secondary outcomes will include medication-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and data pertaining to the role and impact of the pharmacist on prescribing. In addition, economic and process evaluations will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee and will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN Registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18752158).

Project description:Interventions: Future Health Today (FHT) trial is testing a quality improvement (QI) program in order to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer in general practice. The intervention consists of: 1.Technology platform consisting of audit, point of care clinical decision support, and QI templates. Practices will generate a baseline cohort of patients using the audit tool at the beginning of the trial. The progress of the cohort will be automatically updated using the Future Health Today platform over the trial duration. Practices will be encouraged to review their progress and complete a minimum of three reviews of audit data as part of an accredited Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) quality improvement activity. These can be carried out at any time during the trial, but we will recommend that they are conducted at least once every four months over the 12-month trial period. The point of care tool will automatically deploy when the electronic medical record of an eligible patient is opened and will provide a prompt regarding guideline-concordant care. The QI template has been developed specifically for this study, and aligns to RACGP requirements. 2.ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) education activities. ECHO sessions are delivered using the zoom videoconference platform. The 60-minute sessions consist of (1) Introductions of participants (2) Delivery of a short didactic lecture (approximately 10 minutes in duration), followed by question and answer session (3) Presentation of a clinical case by a participant followed by feedback from participants and an expert panel. Each arm will receive 3 ECHO sessions based on their allocation (see below). T Primary outcome(s): Proportion of eligible patients with CKD (coded diagnosis or pathology consistent with diagnosis of CKD) that are receiving ACE inhibitors or Angiotensin receptor blockers and/or statins consistent with Kidney Health Australia, RACGP Red Book and National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance Guidelines.[ 12 months post-baseline];Proportion of eligible patients at risk of undiagnosed prostate, oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, endometrial, lung or ovarian cancer that have been assessed and investigated according to NICE, Cancer Council Australia, Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia guidelines. This will be assessed utilising data extracted from electronic medical records and stored in the Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne Patron dataset. [ 12 months post-baseline] Study Design: Purpose: Educational / counselling / training; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy

Dataset Information

Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets