Dataset Information

Interface Management between General Practitioners and Rheumatologists-Results of a Survey Defining a Concept for Future Joint Recommendations.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To measure the views of general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists in a nationwide evaluation, so as to optimise their cooperation in managing patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. METHODS:A questionnaire covering aspects of collaboration was sent, both by mail and/or by email, to all GPs and rheumatologists in Austria. Topics covered were (i) examinations and interventions to be performed before referral, (ii) the spectrum of diseases to be referred, and (iii) the role of GPs in follow-up and continuous management of patients. RESULTS:1,229 GPs of the 4,016 GPs (31%) and 110 of the 180 rheumatologists (61%) responded to the questionnaire. In cases of suspected arthritis, 99% of the GPs and 92% of the rheumatologists recommended specific laboratory tests, and 92% and 70%, respectively, recommended X-rays of affected joints before referral. Rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis and connective tissue disease were unanimously seen as indications for referral to a rheumatologist. Only 12% of rheumatologists felt responsible for the treatment of hand osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. 80% of GPs and 85% of rheumatologists were of the opinion that treatment with disease-modifying drugs should be initiated by a specialist. Subsequent drug prescription and administration by GPs was supported by a majority of GPs and rheumatologists, with a concomitant rheumatologist follow-up every three to six months. CONCLUSION:The considerable consensus between the two professional groups constitutes a solid base for future joint recommendations, with the aim to accelerate the diagnostic process and the initiation of adequate therapy.

SUBMITTER: Puchner R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4704827 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interface Management between General Practitioners and Rheumatologists-Results of a Survey Defining a Concept for Future Joint Recommendations.

Puchner Rudolf R Edlinger Michael M Mur Erich E Eberl Gabriele G Herold Manfred M Kufner Peter P Puchner Antonia A Puchner Stephan E SE Redlich Kurt K Alkin Alois A Machold Klaus K

PloS one 20160107 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To measure the views of general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists in a nationwide evaluation, so as to optimise their cooperation in managing patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.<h4>Methods</h4>A questionnaire covering aspects of collaboration was sent, both by mail and/or by email, to all GPs and rheumatologists in Austria. Topics covered were (i) examinations and interventions to be performed before referral, (ii) the spectrum of diseases to be referred, and ( ...[more]

PMID: 26741702

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated telemedicine (TM) to be an effective tool to complement rheumatology care and address workforce shortage. With the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, TM experienced a massive upswing. However, in rheumatology care, the use of TM stagnated again shortly thereafter. Consequently, the factors associated with physicians' willingness to use TM (TM willingness) and actual use of TM (TM use) need to be thoroughly investigated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the factors that determine TM use and TM willingness among German general practitioners and rheumatologists.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from a German nationwide cross-sectional survey with general practitioners and rheumatologists. Bayesian univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to the data to determine which factors were associated with TM use and TM willingness. The predictor variables (covariates) that were studied individually included sociodemographic factors (eg, age and sex), work characteristics (eg, practice location and medical specialty), and self-assessed knowledge of TM. All the variables positively and negatively associated with TM use and TM willingness in the univariate analysis were then considered for Bayesian model averaging analysis after a selection based on the variance inflation factor (≤2.5). All analyses were stratified by sex.ResultsUnivariate analysis revealed that out of 83 variables, 36 (43%) and 34 (41%) variables were positively or negatively associated (region of practical equivalence≤5%) with TM use and TM willingness, respectively. The Bayesian model averaging analysis allowed us to identify 13 and 17 factors of TM use and TM willingness, respectively. Among these factors, being female, having very poor knowledge of TM, treating <500 patients per quarter, and not being willing to use TM were negatively associated with TM use, whereas having good knowledge of TM and treating >1000 patients per quarter were positively associated with TM use. In addition, being aged 51 to 60 years, thinking that TM is not important for current and future work, and not currently using TM were negatively associated with TM willingness, whereas owning a smart device and working in an urban area were positively associated with TM willingness.ConclusionsThe results point to the close connection between health care professionals' knowledge of TM and actual TM use. These results lend support to the integration of digital competencies into medical education as well as hands-on training for health care professionals. Incentive programs for physicians aged >50 years and practicing in rural areas could further encourage TM willingness.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.DesignCross sectional online survey.Participants1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.Main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace-not merely aid-the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge.ResultsA total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time.ConclusionsThe majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs' in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.

Project description:Introduction: The International Guidelines recommend exercise, education and weight management (if appropriate) as the first-line conservative treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to enhance their self-management. The aim of this study was to investigate the current state of conservative non-pharmacological management of patients with knee OA in Switzerland and to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators to the application of the guideline recommendations. Materials and methods: Eleven semi-structured interviews with selected general practitioners (GPs), rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons were performed. Based on these results, an online survey was developed and sent to the members of three scientific medical societies. Questions addressed the frequency of diagnostic measures, treatment options, reasons for referral to exercise and also barriers and facilitators. Results: A total of 234 members responded. They indicated that patients normally present due to pain (n = 222, 98.2%) and functional limitations of the knee (n = 151, 66.8%). In addition to clinical assessment, X-ray (n = 214, 95.5%) and MRI (n = 70, 31.3%) were the most frequently used diagnostic measures. Treatment options usually involved patient education for diagnosis (n = 223, 98.6%) and suitable activities (n = 217, 96%), pharmacological treatment (n = 203, 89.8%) and referral to physiotherapy (n = 188, 83.2%). The participants estimated that they had referred 54% of their patients with knee OA for a specific exercise. The referral to exercise was driven by "patient expectation/high level of suffering" (n = 73, 37.1%) and their "own clinical experience" (n = 49, 24.9%). The specialists rated the most important barriers to referral to exercise as "disinterest of patient" (n = 88, 46.3%) and "physically active patient" (n = 59, 31.1%). As the most important facilitators, they rated "importance to mention exercise despite the short time of consultation" (n = 170, 89.4%) and "insufficiently physically active patient" (n = 165, 86.9%). Discussion: A substantial evidence-performance gap in the management of patients with knee OA appears to exist in Switzerland. For the systematic referral to exercise as the first-line intervention, it might be useful for medical doctors to suggest a structured exercise programme to patients with knee OA, rather than just advising general exercise.

Project description:Discrepancies in illness representations between patients and physicians result in treatment difficulties, decreased well-being of patients and misunderstandings and disrupted communication. Hence, the objective of this study was to compare illness perceptions of individual patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc), their rheumatologists and their general practitioners (GPs) and explore potential differences.This study has a cross-sectional design. Patients with SLE and SSc, who were followed at the rheumatology department of the University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), completed the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire which measures patients' perceptions of their condition and captures nine dimensions. Physicians completed the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire for Healthcare Professionals which consists of seven dimensions and measures perceptions of the healthcare professional regarding the disease of their patients. Intraclass correlation was performed to examine relationships between pairs of respondents; Cohen's d was used for estimating the magnitude of the difference.Questionnaires were sent to 284 patients of whom 241 (113 SSc and 128 SLE patients) were included. Five rheumatologists and 160 GPs participated. For both diseases, positive correlations were found for 'consequences', 'illness coherence' and 'emotional representations' among patients, rheumatologists and GPs. GPs scored higher on the 'consequences' of these diseases for the patient (d=0.71 for SLE; d=0.80 for SSc). Differences between rheumatologists and GPs were small for SSc and moderate to large for 'consequences' (d=0.56) and 'timeline acute/chronic' (d=0.95) in SLE with higher scores for GPs.For both diseases and among the three groups, significant correlations are detected for the dimensions 'consequences', 'illness coherence' and 'emotional representations'. Differences between rheumatologists and GPs were mainly detected in the case of SLE patients. This can have implications for the collaboration between these two groups of physicians in daily clinical practice.NCT02655640; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Dataset Information

Interface Management between General Practitioners and Rheumatologists-Results of a Survey Defining a Concept for Future Joint Recommendations.

Publications

Interface Management between General Practitioners and Rheumatologists-Results of a Survey Defining a Concept for Future Joint Recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets