Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners.Design
Randomised comparison of two revalidation models.Setting
Primary care in Tayside, Scotland.Participants
66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combining revalidation with continuing professional development.Main outcome measures
Feasibility and acceptability of each approach and effect on the doctor's continuing professional development. The ability to make a summative judgment on completed models and whether either model would allow patient groups to have confidence in the revalidation process.Results
The criterion model was preferred by general practitioners. For both models doctors reported making changes to their practice and felt a positive effect on their continuing professional development. Summative assessment of the folders showed reasonable inter-rater reliability.Conclusions
The criterion model provides a practical and acceptable model for general practitioners to use when preparing for revalidation.
SUBMITTER: Bruce D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC381228 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.
Bruce David D Phillips Katie K Reid Ross R Snadden David D Harden Ronald R
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20040301 7441
<h4>Objective</h4>To compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised comparison of two revalidation models.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care in Tayside, Scotland.<h4>Participants</h4>66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combini ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ) has been widely used to assess patient experience in general practice in the UK since 2004. In 2013, new regulations were introduced by the General Medical Council (GMC) requiring UK doctors to undertake periodic revalidation, which includes assessment of patient experience for individual doctors. We describe the development of a new version of GPAQ - GPAQ-R which addresses the GMC's requirements for revalidation as well as additional NHS requirements for surveys that GPs may need to carry out in their own practices.MethodsQuestionnaires were given out by doctors or practice staff after routine consultations in line with the guidance given by the General Medical Council for surveys to be used for revalidation. Data analysis and practice reports were provided independently.ResultsData were analysed for questionnaires from 7258 patients relating to 164 GPs in 29 general practices. Levels of missing data were generally low (typically 4.5-6%). The number of returned questionnaires required to achieve reliability of 0.7 were around 35 for individual doctor communication items and 29 for a composite score based on doctor communication items. This suggests that the responses to GPAQ-R had similar reliability to the GMC's own questionnaire and we recommend 30 completed GPAQ-R questionnaires are sufficient for revalidation purposes. However, where an initial screen raises concern, the survey might be repeated with 50 completed questionnaires in order to increase reliability.ConclusionsGPAQ-R is a development of a well-established patient experience questionnaire used in general practice in the UK since 2004. This new version can be recommended for use in order to meet the UK General Medical Council's requirements for surveys to be used in revalidation of doctors. It also meets the needs of GPs to ask about patient experience relating to aspects of practice care that are not specific to individual general practitioners (e.g. receptionists, telephone access) which meet other survey requirements of the National Health Service in England. Use of GPAQ-R has the potential to reduce the number of surveys that GPs need to carry out in their practices to meet the various regulatory requirements which they face.
| S-EPMC3819733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To test the hypothesis that a multimodal intervention giving the general practitioner (GP) an enhanced role in cancer rehabilitation improves patients' health-related quality of life and psychological distress.Cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention group or to a control group. Patients were subsequently allocated to intervention or control (usual procedures) based on the randomisation status of their GP.All clinical departments at a public regional hospital treating cancer patients and all general practices in Denmark.Adult patients treated for incident cancer at Vejle Hospital, Denmark, between 12 May 2008 and 28 February 2009. A total of 955 patients (486 to the intervention group and 469 to the control group) registered with 323 general practices were included.The intervention included an interview about rehabilitation needs with a rehabilitation coordinator at the regional hospital, information from the hospital to the GP about individual needs for rehabilitation and an encouragement of the GP to contact the patient to offer his support with rehabilitation.The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured 6 months after inclusion using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes included quality of life at 14 months and additional subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at 6 and 14 months and psychological distress at 14 months using the Profile of Mood States Scale.No effect of the intervention was observed on primary and/or secondary outcomes after 6 and 14 months.A multimodal intervention aiming to give the GP an enhanced role in cancer patients' rehabilitation did not improve quality of life or psychological distress.ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.
| S-EPMC3332246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNut consumption at the population level remains low despite the well-documented benefits of their consumption, including their cardioprotective effects. Studies have suggested that advice from health professionals may be a means to increase nut consumption levels. Understanding how nuts are perceived by the public and health professionals, along with understanding the public's perceptions of motivators of and deterrents to consuming nuts, may inform the development of initiatives to improve on these low levels of consumption. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare perceptions of nuts among three groups of health professionals (dietitians, general practioners, and practice nurses) and the general public in New Zealand (NZ), along with motivators of and deterrents to consuming nuts amongst the general public and their experiences of receiving advice around nut consumption.MethodsThe NZ electoral roll was used to identify dietitians, general practitioners (GPs), and practice nurses, based on their free-text occupation descriptions, who were then invited to complete a questionnaire with 318, 292, and 149 respondents respectively. 1,600 members of the general public were randomly selected from the roll with 710 respondents. Analyses were performed using chi-squared tests to look at differences in categorical variables and linear regression for differences in other variables between the four survey groups.ResultsAlthough there were significant differences between the four groups regarding the perceptions of nuts, in general there was agreement that nuts are healthy, high in protein and fat, are filling, and some nuts are high in selenium. We noted frequent agreement that the general public participants would consume more if nuts: improved health (67%), were more affordable (60%), or improved the nutrient content (59%) and balance of fats (58%) within their diets. Over half the respondents reported they would eat more nuts if they were advised to do so by a dietitian or doctor, despite less than 4% reporting they had received such advice. The most frequently selected deterrents to increasing nut consumption were: cost (67%), potential weight gain (66%), and leading to eating too much fat (63%).DiscussionIt is concerning that so few among the general public report receiving advice to consume more nuts from health professionals, especially given their apparent responsiveness to such advice. Health professionals could exploit the motivators of nut consumption, while also addressing the deterrents, to promote nut intake. These factors should also be addressed in public health messages to encourage regular nut consumption among the public. Educational initiatives could also be used to improve the nutritional knowledge of GPs and practice nurses with regard to nuts, although even dietitians were unsure of their knowledge in some cases.
| S-EPMC6138036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:General Practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the follow-up of patients after deliberate self-poisoning (DSP). The aim was to examine whether structured follow-up by GPs increased the content of, adherence to, and satisfaction with treatment after discharge from emergency departments.This was a multicentre, randomised trial with blinded assignment. Five emergency departments and general practices in the catchment area participated. 202 patients discharged from emergency departments after DSP were assigned. The intervention was structured follow-up by the GP over a 6-month period with a minimum of five consultations, accompanied by written guidelines for the GPs with suggestions for motivating patients to follow treatment, assessing personal problems and suicidal ideation, and availability in the case of suicidal crisis. Outcome measures were data retrieved from the Register for the control and payment of reimbursements to health service providers (KUHR) and by questionnaires mailed to patients and GPs. After 3 and 6 months, the frequency and content of GP contact, and adherence to GP consultations and treatment in general were registered. Satisfaction with general treatment received and with the GP was measured by the EUROPEP scale.Patients in the intervention group received significantly more consultations than the control group (mean 6.7 vs. 4.5 (p = 0.004)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the time their GP took to listen to their personal problems (93.1% vs. 59.4% (p = 0.002)) and with the fact that the GP included them in medical decisions (87.5% vs. 54. 8% (p = 0.009)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the treatment in general than the control group (79% vs. 51% (p = 0.026)).Guidelines and structured, enhanced follow-up by the GP after the discharge of the DSP patient increased the number of consultations and satisfaction with aftercare in general practice. Consistently with previous research, there is still a need for interventional studies.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342809. Registered 18 April 2011.
| S-EPMC4604741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChildhood asthma is common in Cape Town, a province of South Africa, but is underdiagnosed by general practitioners. Medications are often prescribed inappropriately, and care is episodic. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of educational outreach to general practitioners on asthma symptoms of children in their practice.MethodsThis is a cluster randomised trial with general practices as the unit of intervention, randomisation, and analysis. The setting is Mitchells Plain (population 300,000), a dormitory town near Cape Town. Solo general practitioners, without nurse support, operate from storefront practices. Caregiver-reported symptom data were collected for 318 eligible children (2 to 17 years) with moderate to severe asthma, who were attending general practitioners in Mitchells Plain. One year post-intervention follow-up data were collected for 271 (85%) of these children in all 43 practices. Practices randomised to intervention (21) received two 30-minute educational outreach visits by a trained pharmacist who left materials describing key interventions to improve asthma care. Intervention and control practices received the national childhood asthma guideline. Asthma severity was measured in a parent-completed survey administered through schools using a symptom frequency and severity scale. We compared intervention and control group children on the change in score from pre-to one-year post-intervention.ResultsSymptom scores declined an additional 0.84 points in the intervention vs. control group (on a nine-point scale. p = 0.03). For every 12 children with asthma exposed to a doctor allocated to the intervention, one extra child will have substantially reduced symptoms.ConclusionEducational outreach was accepted by general practitioners and was effective. It could be applied to other health care quality problems in this setting.
| S-EPMC2200659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveHealth scientists strive for a smooth recruitment of physicians for research projects like surveys. Teaching physicians are an easy to approach population that is already affiliated with a university by teaching students in their practice. How do response rates compare between a convenient online survey among teaching physicians and an elaborate postal survey in a random sample of unknown physicians? Data from the TMI-GP study on the use of memory tests in general practice were used.ResultsPhysicians in the random sample responded to the postal survey more often than teaching physicians to the online survey (59.5% vs. 18.9%; odds ratio 7.06; 95% confidence interval 4.81-10.37; p < 0.001). Although it is unclear whether the sample, the survey mode (online vs. postal) or both account for this effect, it is noteworthy that even in such a convenience sample of known/committed physicians, an adequate response rate could not be reached without a tailored and elaborated survey technique. Responders in the two samples were comparable regarding a content-related item (use of memory tests; Χ2 (df = 1) = 3.07; p = 0.080).
| S-EPMC8751373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Occupational stressors are commonly encountered in small animal veterinary practice and have been associated with burnout. The working context of veterinarians differs by specialty, and this can potentially lead to variable exposures to risk factors for burnout. The aim of this study was to explore differences in demographic and working conditions of veterinary general practitioners (GPs) and emergency practitioners (EPs) to compare exposure to different potential stressors. An anonymous, online survey was administered to veterinary GPs and EPs practicing in metropolitan regions of Australia. In total, 320 participant responses were analyzed (n = 237, 74.2% GPs and n = 83, 25.9% EPs). Significant differences (P < 0.05) in the demographics and work-related exposures were found between the two groups. GPs were found to be older than EPs with a greater number of years of experience in their field (P < 0.001). Most veterinary GPs worked only day shifts (207/236, 87.7%); where EPs worked a greater variety of shift patterns, with "only day shifts" being the least common shift pattern (P < 0.001). Most GPs worked a set and predictable roster pattern (195/236, 83.6%), while most EPs did not (51/83, 61.5%). EPs worked more weekends and public holidays (P < 0.001). The EP group performed more hours of work each week but worked less overtime. The main contributing factors for overtime were scheduling factors for GPs and staffing issues for EPs. EPs were commonly not able to take meal-breaks and GPs' meal-breaks were commonly interrupted by work. EPs were more frequently exposed to patient death, euthanasia (including for financial reasons), emotionally distressed clients and delivering negative news (P < 0.001). Both groups indicated that most work environments were collegiate and supportive, and a minority reported toxic colleagues (11.8%) or management teams (26.9%). Just under one-half of respondents reported having witnessed or experienced workplace bullying. Of our respondent group, 52.0% (166/319) were not satisfied with their remuneration. Desire to leave their principal area of practice was prevalent among this survey group (192/319, 60.2%) with approximately one-third considering leaving the veterinary profession. We discuss the implications of these workplace factors, including mitigation strategies.
| S-EPMC10993158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490.
| S-EPMC6837310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of post-diagnosis dementia treatment and coordination of care by memory clinics compared with general practitioners.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial.SettingNine memory clinics and 159 general practitioners in the Netherlands.Participants175 patients with a new diagnosis of mild to moderate dementia living in the community and their informal caregivers.InterventionsUsual care provided by memory clinic or general practitioner.Main outcome measuresCaregiver rated quality of life of the patient measured with the quality of life in Alzheimer's disease instrument and self perceived burden of the informal caregiver measured with the sense of competence questionnaire (intention to treat analysis).ResultsThe quality of life of the patients in the memory clinic group was 0.5 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 1.6) points higher than in the general practitioner group. Caregivers' burden was 2.4 (-5.8 to 1.0) points lower in the memory clinic group than in the general practitioner group.ConclusionNo evidence was found that memory clinics were more effective than general practitioners with regard to post-diagnosis treatment and coordination care for patients with dementia. Without further evidence on the effectiveness of these modalities, other arguments, such as cost minimisation, patients' preferences, or regional health service planning, can determine which type of dementia care is offered.Trial registrationClinical trials NCT00554047.
| S-EPMC3352696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN51780222.
| S-EPMC6194458 | biostudies-literature