Dataset Information

What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Optimal treatment gives complete relief of symptoms of many disorders. But even if such treatment is available, some patients have persisting complaints. One disorder, from which the patients should achieve complete relief of symptoms with medical or surgical treatment, is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the fact that such treatment is cheap, safe and easily available; some patients have persistent complaints after contact with the health services. This study evaluates the causes of treatment failure.

Methods

Twelve patients with GERD and persistent complaints had a semi-structured interview which focused on the patients' evaluation of treatment failure. The interviews were taped, transcribed and evaluated by 18 physicians, (six general practitioners, six gastroenterologists and six gastrointestinal surgeons) who completed a questionnaire for each patient. The questionnaires were scored, and the relative responsibility for the failure was attributed to the patient, primary care, secondary care and interaction in the health services.

Results

Failing interaction in the health services was the most important cause of treatment failure, followed by failure in primary care, secondary care and the patient himself; the relative responsibilities were 35%, 28%, 27% and 10% respectively. There was satisfactory agreement about the causes between doctors with different specialities, but significant inter-individual differences between the doctors. The causes of the failures differed between the patients.

Conclusions

Treatment failure is a complex problem. Inadequate interaction in the health services seems to be important. Improved communication between parts of the health services and with the patients are areas of improvement.

SUBMITTER: Farup PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3126699 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

Farup Per G PG Blix Ivar I Førre Sigurd S Johnsen Gjermund G Lange Ove O Johannessen Rune R Petersen Hermod H

BMC health services research 20110520

<h4>Background</h4>Optimal treatment gives complete relief of symptoms of many disorders. But even if such treatment is available, some patients have persisting complaints. One disorder, from which the patients should achieve complete relief of symptoms with medical or surgical treatment, is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the fact that such treatment is cheap, safe and easily available; some patients have persistent complaints after contact with the health services. This study e ...[more]

PMID: 21599926

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Project description:Despite the rising burden of noncommunicable diseases, access to quality decentralized noncommunicable disease services remain limited in many low- and middle-income countries. Here we describe the strategies we employed to drive the process from adaptation to national endorsement and implementation of the 2016 Botswana primary healthcare guidelines for adults. The strategies included detailed multilevel assessment with broad stakeholder inputs and in-depth analysis of local data; leveraging academic partnerships; facilitating development of supporting policy instruments; and embedding noncommunicable disease guidelines within broader primary health-care guidelines in keeping with the health ministry strategic direction. At facility level, strategies included developing a multimethod training programme for health-care providers, leveraging on the experience of provision of human immunodeficiency virus care and engaging health-care implementers early in the process. Through the strategies employed, the country's first national primary health-care guidelines were endorsed in 2016 and a phased three-year implementation started in August 2017. In addition, provision of primary health-care delivery of noncommunicable disease services was included in the country's 11th national development plan (2017-2023). During the guideline development process, we learnt that strong interdisciplinary skills in communication, organization, coalition building and systems thinking, and technical grasp of best-practices in low- and middle-income countries were important. Furthermore, misaligned agendas of stakeholders, exaggerated by a siloed approach to guideline development, underestimation of the importance of having policy instruments in place and coordination of the processes initially being led outside the health ministry caused delays. Our experience is relevant to other countries interested in developing and implementing guidelines for evidence-based noncommunicable disease services.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these "core" services.Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Urban Primary Health Care Project (UPHCP) was implemented by the Government of Bangladesh in response to rapid urbanization and growing inequalities in access to and quality of primary health care. The goal of the project was to improve health status of the urban poor living in city corporations and municipalities through the provision of health care services by NGOs that are contracted through public-private partnership. The first phase of the project started in 1998 and the project is currently in its fourth phase covering more urban areas than the first three phases. This study evaluates the impact of the second phase project (UPHCP-II) on health outcomes, mainly child diarrhea, acute respiratory infection, antenatal and postnatal care, skilled birth attendance, breastfeeding prevalence, contraceptive prevalence, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV/AIDS awareness. METHODS:The effect of the project was estimated through propensity score matching between project and non-project areas comparing baseline and endline surveys over a six-year period from 2006 to 2012. An innovation of this study is the recalibration of the sampling weights that allows the use of these two independent surveys in impact evaluation. RESULTS:Over the six-year period, UPHCP-II improved the health status of the population in project areas compared to non-project areas. The study found significant improvement in health outcomes in terms of reduced diarrhea and acute respiratory infection in children, which explains the downward trend in child mortality rate. Moreover, the project also improved antenatal care and skilled birth attendance. Contraceptive prevalence and HIV/AIDS awareness and avoidance increased, and sexually transmitted infections decreased. CONCLUSIONS:UPHCP-II was effective in achieving its health outcome targets, while previous studies show that it was efficient in the delivery of health care and clients were highly satisfied because health facilities were in close proximity, and doctors and staff were perceived as responsive in delivering high quality of care. The results of this study could help inform future design and implementation of urban health interventions that involve contracting primary health care service delivery in Bangladesh and other similar settings.

Dataset Information

What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What causes treatment failure - the patient, primary care, secondary care or inadequate interaction in the health services?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets