Dataset Information

Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Older patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02664454; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Ferrat E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5898323 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study).

Ferrat Emilie E Bastuji-Garin Sylvie S Paillaud Elena E Caillet Philippe P Clerc Pascal P Moscova Laura L Gouja Amel A Renard Vincent V Attali Claude C Breton Julien Le JL Audureau Etienne E

BMJ open 20180412 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Older patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric h ...[more]

PMID: 29654038

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with dementia are susceptible to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, they are not always closely monitored for potential problems relating to their medicines: structured nurse-led ADR Profiles have the potential to address this care gap. We aimed to assess the number and nature of clinical problems identified and addressed and changes in prescribing following introduction of nurse-led medicines' monitoring.DesignPragmatic cohort stepped-wedge cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of structured nurse-led medicines' monitoring versus usual care.SettingFive UK private sector care homes.Participants41 service users, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant or anti-epileptic medicine.InterventionNurses completed the West Wales ADR (WWADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines with each participant according to trial step.OutcomesProblems addressed and changes in medicines prescribed.Data collection and analysisInformation was collected from participants' notes before randomisation and after each of five monthly trial steps. The impact of the Profile on problems found, actions taken and reduction in mental health medicines was explored in multivariate analyses, accounting for data collection step and site.ResultsFive of 10 sites and 43 of 49 service users approached participated. Profile administration increased the number of problems addressed from a mean of 6.02 [SD 2.92] to 9.86 [4.48], effect size 3.84, 95% CI 2.57-4.11, P <0.001. For example, pain was more likely to be treated (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 3.84, 1.78-8.30), and more patients attended dentists and opticians (aOR 52.76 [11.80-235.90] and 5.12 [1.45-18.03] respectively). Profile use was associated with reduction in mental health medicines (aOR 4.45, 1.15-17.22).ConclusionThe WWADR Profile for Mental Health Medicines can improve the quality and safety of care, and warrants further investigation as a strategy to mitigate the known adverse effects of prescribed medicines.Trial registrationISRCTN 48133332.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of goal focused telephone coaching by practice nurses in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia.DesignProspective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practices as the unit of randomisation.SettingGeneral practices in Victoria, Australia.Participants59 of 69 general practices that agreed to participate recruited sufficient patients and were randomised. Of 829 patients with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% in the past 12 months) who were assessed for eligibility, 473 (236 from 30 intervention practices and 237 from 29 control practices) agreed to participate.InterventionPractice nurses from intervention practices received two days of training in a telephone coaching programme, which aimed to deliver eight telephone and one face to face coaching episodes per patient.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was mean absolute change in HbA1c between baseline and 18 months in the intervention group compared with the control group.ResultsThe intervention and control patients were similar at baseline. None of the practices dropped out over the study period; however, patient attrition rates were 5% in each group (11/236 and 11/237 in the intervention and control group, respectively). The median number of coaching sessions received by the 236 intervention patients was 3 (interquartile range 1-5), of which 25% (58/236) did not receive any coaching sessions. At 18 months' follow-up the effect on glycaemic control did not differ significantly (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.20 to 0.24, P=0.84) between the intervention and control groups, adjusted for HbA1c measured at baseline and the clustering. Other biochemical and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.ConclusionsA practice nurse led telephone coaching intervention implemented in the real world primary care setting produced comparable outcomes to usual primary care in Australia. The addition of a goal focused coaching role onto the ongoing generalist role of a practice nurse without prescribing rights was found to be ineffective.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN50662837.

Project description:ObjectivesOut-of-hours (OOH) telephone triage is used to manage patient flow, but knowledge of the communicative skills of telephone triagists is limited. The aims of this study were to compare communicative parameters in general practitioner (GP)-led and nurse-led OOH telephone triage and to discuss differences in relation to patient-centred communication and safety issues.DesignObservational study.SettingTwo Danish OOH settings: a large-scale general practitioner cooperative in the Central Denmark Region (n=100 GP-led triage conversations) and Medical Helpline 1813 in the Capital Region of Denmark (n=100 nurse-led triage conversations with use of a clinical decision support system).Participants200 audio-recorded telephone triage conversations randomly selected.Primary and secondary outcome measuresConversations were compared with regard to length of call, distribution of speaking time, question types, callers' expression of negative affect, and nurses' and GPs' responses to callers' negative affectivity using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Student's t-test.ResultsCompared with GPs, nurses had longer telephone contacts (137s vs 264 s, p=0.001) and asked significantly more questions (5 vs 9 questions, p=0.001). In 36% of nurse-led triage conversations, triage nurses either transferred the call to a physician or had to confer the call with a physician. Nurses gave the callers significantly more spontaneous talking time than GPs (23.4s vs 17.9 s, p=0.01). Compared with nurses, GPs seemed more likely to give an emphatic response when a caller spontaneously expressed concern; however, this difference was not statistically significant (36% vs 29%, p=0.6).ConclusionsWhen comparing communicative parameters in GP-led and nurse-led triage, several differences were observed. However, the impact of these differences in the perspective of patient-centred communication and safety needs further research. More knowledge is needed to determine what characterises good quality in telephone triage communication.

Project description:BackgroundChanging demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.MethodsA multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.ResultsMedian number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).ConclusionThe pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Project description:ObjectivesReminders in primary care administrative systems aim to help clinicians provide evidence-based care, prescribe safely and save money. However, increased use of reminders can lead to alert fatigue. Our study aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and nurse practitioners' (NPs) views on electronic reminders in primary care.DesignA qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews.Setting and participantsFifteen GPs and NP based in general practices located in North-West London and Yorkshire, England.MethodsWe collected data on participants' views on: (1) perceptions of the value of information provided; (2) reminder-related behaviours and (3) how to improve reminders. We carried out a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants were familiar with reminders in their clinical systems and felt many were important to support their clinical work. However, participants reported, on average, 70% of reminders were ignored. Four major themes emerged: (1) reaction to a reminder, which was mixed and varied by situation. (2) Factors influencing the decision to act on reminders, often related to experience, consultation styles and interests of participants. Time constraints, alert design, inappropriate presentation and litigation were also factors. (3) Negative consequences of using reminders were increased workload or costs and compromising GP and NPs behaviour. (4) Factors relating to improving users' engagement with reminders were prevention of unnecessary reminders through data linkage across healthcare administrative systems or the development of more intelligent algorithms. Participants felt training was vital to effectively manage reminders.ConclusionsGPs and NPs believe reminders are useful in supporting the provision of good quality patient care. Improving GPs and NPs' engagement with reminders centres on further developing their relevance to their clinical practice, which is personalised, considers cognitive workflow and suppresses inappropriate presentation.

Project description:BackgroundIn many low-income countries, care for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health conditions is provided by nurses. The benefits of nurse substitution and supplementation in NCD care in high-income settings are well recognised, but evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. Primary Care 101 (PC101) is a programme designed to support and expand nurses' role in NCD care, comprising educational outreach to nurses and a clinical management tool with enhanced prescribing provisions. We evaluated the effect of the programme on primary care nurses' capacity to manage NCDs.Methods and findingsIn a cluster randomised controlled trial design, 38 public sector primary care clinics in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, were randomised. Nurses in the intervention clinics were trained to use the PC101 management tool during educational outreach sessions delivered by health department trainers and were authorised to prescribe an expanded range of drugs for several NCDs. Control clinics continued use of the Practical Approach to Lung Health and HIV/AIDS in South Africa (PALSA PLUS) management tool and usual training. Patients attending these clinics with one or more of hypertension (3,227), diabetes (1,842), chronic respiratory disease (1,157) or who screened positive for depression (2,466), totalling 4,393 patients, were enrolled between 28 March 2011 and 10 November 2011. Primary outcomes were treatment intensification in the hypertension, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease cohorts, defined as the proportion of patients in whom treatment was escalated during follow-up over 14 mo, and case detection in the depression cohort. Primary outcome data were analysed for 2,110 (97%) intervention and 2,170 (97%) control group patients. Treatment intensification rates in intervention clinics were not superior to those in the control clinics (hypertension: 44% in the intervention group versus 40% in the control group, risk ratio [RR] 1.08 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; p = 0.252]; diabetes: 57% versus 50%, RR 1.10 [0.97 to 1.24; p = 0.126]; chronic respiratory disease: 14% versus 12%, RR 1.08 [0.75 to 1.55; p = 0.674]), nor was case detection of depression (18% versus 24%, RR 0.76 [0.53 to 1.10; p = 0.142]). No adverse effects of the nurses' expanded scope of practice were observed. Limitations of the study include dependence on self-reported diagnoses for inclusion in the patient cohorts, limited data on uptake of PC101 by users, reliance on process outcomes, and insufficient resources to measure important health outcomes, such as HbA1c, at follow-up.ConclusionsEducational outreach to primary care nurses to train them in the use of a management tool involving an expanded role in managing NCDs was feasible and safe but was not associated with treatment intensification or improved case detection for index diseases. This notwithstanding, the intervention, with adjustments to improve its effectiveness, has been adopted for implementation in primary care clinics throughout South Africa.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN20283604).

Dataset Information

Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study).

Publications

Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets