Best practice in primary care pathology: review 3.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smellie WS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1860461 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 3.
Smellie W S A WS Forth J J Bareford D D Twomey P P Galloway M J MJ Logan E C M EC Smart S R S SR Reynolds T M TM Waine C C
Journal of clinical pathology 20060801 8
This best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine: (i) "minor" blood platelet count and haemoglobin abnormalities; (ii) diagnosis and monitoring of anaemia caused by iron deficiency; (iii) secondary hyperlipidaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia; and (iv) glycated haemoglobin and microalbumin use in diabetes. The review is presented in question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a précis of guidance fo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This fourth best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine are examined in this review: (1) safety monitoring for three common drugs; (2) use of prostate-specific antigen; (3) investigation of vaginal discharge; and (4) investigation of subfertility. The review is presented in question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a precis of the guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents and evidence-based medicine reviews, supplemented by Medline Embase searches to identify relevant primary research documents. They are not standards but form a guide to be set in the clinical context. Most of them are consensus based rather than evidence based. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.
| S-EPMC1860479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough primary health care (PHC) is a key component of all health care systems, services are not always readily available, accessible or affordable. This systematic review examines effective strategies to enhance access to best practice processes of PHC in three domains: chronic disease management, prevention and episodic care.MethodsAn extensive search of bibliographic data bases to identify peer and non-peer reviewed literature was undertaken. Identified papers were screened to identify and classify intervention studies that measured the impact of strategies (singly or in combination) on change in use or the reach of services in defined population groups (evaluated interventions).ResultsThe search identified 3,148 citations of which 121 were intervention studies and 75 were evaluated interventions. Evaluated interventions were found in all three domains: prevention (n?=?45), episodic care (n?=?19), and chronic disease management (n?=?11). They were undertaken in a number of countries including Australia (n?=?25), USA (n?=?25), and UK (n?=?15). Study quality was ranked as high (31% of studies), medium (61%) and low (8%). The 75 evaluated interventions tested a range of strategies either singly (n?=?46 studies) or as a combination of two (n?=?20) or more strategies (n?=?9). Strategies targeted both health providers and patients and were categorised to five groups: practice re-organisation (n?=?43 studies), patient support (n?=?29), provision of new services (n?=?19), workforce development (n?=?11), and financial incentives (n?=?9). Strategies varied by domain, reflecting the complexity of care needs and processes. Of the 75 evaluated interventions, 55 reported positive findings with interventions using a combination of strategies more likely to report positive results.ConclusionsThis review suggests that multiple, linked strategies targeting different levels of the health care system are most likely to improve access to best practice PHC. The proposed changes in the structure of PHC in Australia may provide opportunities to investigate the factors that influence access to best practice PHC and to develop and implement effective, evidence based strategies to address these.
| S-EPMC3512489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coordination of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) with Primary Care (PC) is necessary for the continuity of care of patients with fragility fractures. This study proposes a Best Practice Framework (BPF) and performance indicators for the implementation and follow-up of FLS-PC coordination in clinical practice in Spain.PurposeTo develop a BPF for the coordination of FLS with PC in Spain and to improve the continuity of care for patients with fragility fractures.MethodsA Steering Committee selected experts from seven Spanish FLS and related PC doctors and nurses to participate in a best practice workshop. Selection criteria were an active FLS with an identified champion and prior contact with PC centres linked to the hospital. The main aim of the workshop was to review current FLS practices in Spain and their integration with PC. A BPF document with processes, tools, roles, and metrics was then generated.ResultsSpanish FLS consists of a multidisciplinary team of physicians/nurses but with low participation of other professionals and PC staff. Evaluation and treatment strategies are widely variable. Four desired standards were agreed upon: (1) Effective channels for FLS-PC communication; (2) minimum contents of an FLS clinical report and its delivery to PC; (3) adherence monitoring 3 months after FLS baseline visit; and (4) follow-up by PC. Proposed key performance indicators are (a) number of FLS-PC communications, including consensus protocols; (b) confirmation FLS report received by PC; (c) medical/nursing PC appointment after FLS report received; and (d) number of training sessions in PC.ConclusionsThe BPF provides a comprehensive approach for FLS-PC coordination in Spain, to promote the continuity of care in patients with fragility fractures and improve secondary prevention. The implementation of BPF recommendations and performance indicator tracking will benchmark best FLS practices in the future.
| S-EPMC7183494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInherited epidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprises a group of rare disorders that have multi-system effects and patients present with a number of both acute and chronic pain care needs. Effects on quality of life are substantial. Pain and itching are burdensome daily problems. Experience with, and knowledge of, the best pain and itch care for these patients is minimal. Evidence-based best care practice guidelines are needed to establish a base of knowledge and practice for practitioners of many disciplines to improve the quality of life for both adult and pediatric patients with EB.MethodsThe process was begun at the request of Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association International (DEBRA International), an organization dedicated to improvement of care, research and dissemination of knowledge for EB patients worldwide. An international panel of experts in pain and palliative care who have extensive experience caring for patients with EB was assembled. Literature was reviewed and systematically evaluated. For areas of care without direct evidence, clinically relevant literature was assessed, and rounds of consensus building were conducted. The process involved a face-to-face consensus meeting that involved a family representative and methodologist, as well as the panel of clinical experts. During development, EB family input was obtained and the document was reviewed by a wide variety of experts representing several disciplines related to the care of patients with EB.ResultsThe first evidence-based care guidelines for the care of pain in EB were produced. The guidelines are clinically relevant for care of patients of all subtypes and ages, and apply to practitioners of all disciplines involved in the care of patients with EB. When the evidence suggests that the diagnosis or treatment of painful conditions differs between adults and children, it will be so noted.ConclusionsEvidence-based care guidelines are a means of standardizing optimal care for EB patients, whose disease is often times horrific in its effects on quality of life, and whose care is resource-intensive and difficult. The guideline development process also highlighted areas for research in order to improve further the evidence base for future care.
| S-EPMC4190576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCare is often inadequate and poorly integrated after a dementia diagnosis. Research and policy highlight the unaffordability and unsustainability of specialist-led support, and instead suggest a task-shared model, led by primary care. This study is part of the PriDem primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care research programme and will assess delivery of an evidence-informed, primary care based, person-centred intervention. The intervention involves Clinical Dementia Leads (CDLs) working in primary care to develop effective dementia care systems that build workforce capacity and support teams to deliver tailored support to people living with dementia and their carers.Methods and analysisThis is a 15-month mixed-methods feasibility and implementation study, situated in four National Health Service (NHS) primary care networks in England. The primary outcome is adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices, assessed through a patient records audit. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention; appropriateness and acceptability of outcome measures; acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. People living with dementia (n=80) and carers (n=66) will be recruited through participating general practices and will complete standardised measures of health and well-being. Participant service use data will be extracted from electronic medical records. A process evaluation will explore implementation barriers and facilitators through methods including semistructured interviews with people living with dementia, carers and professionals; observation of CDL engagement with practice staff; and a practice fidelity log. Process evaluation data will be analysed qualitatively using codebook thematic analysis, and quantitatively using descriptive statistics. Economic analysis will determine intervention cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received favourable ethical opinion from Wales REC4. NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group support allows researchers preconsent access to patient data. Results will inform intervention adaptations and a future large-scale evaluation. Dissemination through peer-review journals, engagement with policy-makers and conferences will inform recommendations for dementia services commissioning.Trial registration numberISRCTN11677384.
| S-EPMC10441044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although 'best practice' guidelines for dyspepsia management have been disseminated, it remains unclear whether providers adhere to these guidelines.To compare adherence to 'best practice' guidelines among dyspepsia experts, community gastroenterologists and primary-care providers (PCPs).We administered a vignette survey to elicit knowledge and beliefs about dyspepsia including a set of 16 best practices, to three groups: (i) dyspepsia experts; (ii) community gastroenterologists and (iii) PCPs.The expert, community gastroenterologist and PCP groups endorsed 75%, 73% and 57% of best practices respectively. Gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere with guidelines than PCPs (P < 0.0001). PCPs were more likely to define dyspepsia incorrectly, overuse radiographic testing, delay endoscopy, treat empirically for Helciobacter pylori without confirmatory testing and avoid first-line proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). PCPs had more concerns about adverse events with PPIs [e.g. osteoporosis (P = 0.04), community-acquired pneumonia (P = 0.01)] and higher level of concern predicted lower guideline adherence (P = 0.04).Gastroenterologists are more likely than PCPs to comply with best practices in dyspepsia, although compliance remains incomplete in both groups. PCPs harbour more concerns regarding long-term PPI use and these concerns may affect therapeutic decision making. This suggests that best practices have not been uniformly adopted and persistent guideline-practice disconnects should be addressed.
| S-EPMC2953468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the high burden of pneumococcal disease, pneumococcal vaccine coverage continues to fall short of Healthy People 2020 goals. A quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the impact of pneumococcal-specific best-practice alerts (BPAs) with and without workflow redesign compared to health maintenance notifications only, on pneumococcal vaccination rates in at-risk and high-risk adults, and on series completion in immunocompetent adults aged 65+ years.MethodsThis retrospective study used electronic health record and administrative data to identify pneumococcal vaccinations using cross sectional and historical cohorts of adults age 19+ years from 2013 to 2017 who attended clinics associated with the University of Utah Health. Difference-in-differences (DD) analyses was used to assess the impact of interventions across three observation periods (Baseline, Interim, and Follow Up). Adherence to the 2-dose vaccination schedule in older adults was measured through a longitudinal analysis.ResultsIn DD analyses, implementing both workflow redesign and the BPA raised the vaccination rate by 8 percentage points (pp) (P < 0.001) and implementing the BPA only raised the rate by 7 pp. (P < 0.001) among at-risk adults age 19-64 years, relative to implementing health maintenance notifications (i.e., usual care) only in comparison clinics. In high-risk adults age 19-64 years, the BPA with or without workflow redesign did not significantly affect vaccination rates from baseline to follow up relative to health maintenance notifications. Per DD analyses, the effect of the BPA was mixed in immunocompetent and immunocompromised adults age 65+ years. However, immunocompetent older adults attending a clinic that implemented the BPA plus health maintenance notifications and workflow redesign (all 3 interventions) had 1.94 times higher odds (Odds ratio (OR) 1.94; P = 0.0003, 95% CI 1.24, 3.01) to receive the second pneumococcal dose than patients attending a usual practice clinic (i.e., no intervention).ConclusionsA pneumococcal BPA tool that reflects current guidelines implemented with and without workflow redesign improved vaccination rates for at-risk adults age 19-64 years and increased the likelihood of adults aged 65+ to complete the recommended 2-dose series. However, in other adult patient groups, the BPA was not consistently associated with improvements in pneumococcal vaccination rates.
| S-EPMC6621991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBack pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).Methods1573 adults (aged ?18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.Findings851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.InterpretationThe results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.FundingArthritis Research UK.
| S-EPMC3208163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs) have a key role in supporting young people who present with suicidal behaviour/self-harm. However, little is known about young people's opinions and experiences related to GPs' practices for such presentations, and their decisions to disclose suicidal behaviour/self-harm to GPs. Additionally, existing guidelines for the management of suicide risk and/or self-harm have not incorporated young people's perspectives. This study aimed to explore young people's views and experiences related to the identification, assessment and care of suicidal behaviour and self-harm in primary care settings with GPs.Design, setting and participantsTwo qualitative focus groups were conducted in Perth, Western Australia, with 10 young people in total (M age = 20.67 years; range: 16-24). Data were collected using a semistructured, open-ended interview schedule and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFive major themes were identified from the focus groups. (1) Young people wanted a collaborative dialogue with GPs, which included being asked about suicidal behaviour/self-harm, informed of treatment processes and having autonomy in decision making; (2) young people were concerned with a loss of privacy when disclosing suicidal behaviour/self-harm; (3) young people viewed labels and assessments as problematic and reductionist-disliking the terms 'risk' and 'risk assessment', and assessment approaches that are binary and non-holistic; (4) young people highlighted the importance of GPs' attitudes, with a genuine connection, attentiveness and a non-judgemental demeanour seen as paramount; and (5) young people wanted to be provided with practical support and resources, followed-up, and for GPs to be competent when working with suicidal behaviour/self-harm presentations.ConclusionsOur study identified several concerns and recommendations young people have regarding the identification, assessment and care of suicidal behaviour/self-harm in primary care settings. Taken together, these findings may inform the development of resources for GPs, and support progress in youth-oriented best practice.
| S-EPMC7594366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review examines the results of randomized controlled trials in which behavioral weight loss interventions, used alone or with pharmacotherapy, were provided in primary care settings.Literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE (1950-present). Inclusion criteria for studies were: (1) randomized trial, (2) obesity intervention in US adults, and (3) conducted in primary care or explicitly intended to model a primary care setting.Both authors reviewed each study to extract treatment modality, provider, setting, weight change, and attrition. The CONSORT criteria were used to assess study quality. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies, results were summarized but not pooled quantitatively.Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. Studies were classified as: (1) PCP counseling alone, (2) PCP counseling + pharmacotherapy, and (3) "collaborative" obesity care (treatment delivered by a non-physician provider). Weight losses in the active treatment arms of these categories of studies ranged from 0.1 to 2.3 kg, 1.7 to 7.5 kg, and 0.4 to 7.7 kg, respectively. Most studies provided low- or moderate-intensity counseling, as defined by the US Preventive Services Task Force.Current evidence does not support the use of low- to moderate-intensity physician counseling for obesity, by itself, to achieve clinically meaningful weight loss. PCP counseling plus pharmacotherapy, or intensive counseling (from a dietitian or nurse) plus meal replacements may help patients achieve this goal. Further research is needed on different models of managing obesity in primary care practice.
| S-EPMC2726879 | biostudies-other