Dataset Information

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN:Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING:General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS:18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS:Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS:Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.

SUBMITTER: McManus RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC65668 | biostudies-literature | 2002 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study.

McManus R J RJ Mant J J Meulendijks C F M CF Salter R A RA Pattison H M HM Roalfe A K AK Hobbs F D R FD

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20020201 7335

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records.<h4>Design</h4>Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were bas ...[more]

PMID: 11859049

Similar Datasets

Project description:The objectives of this study were to assess burnout in a sample of general practitioners (GPs), to determine factors associated with depersonalisation and to investigate its impact on doctors' consultations with patients.Cross-sectional, postal survey of GPs using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Patient survey and tape-recording of consultations for a subsample of respondents stratified by their MBI scores, gender and duration of General Medical Council registration.UK general practice.GPs within NHS Essex.Scores on MBI subscales (depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment); scores on Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire and patient-centredness scores attributed to tape-recorded consultations by independent observers.In the postal survey, 564/789 (71%) GPs completed the MBI. High levels of emotional exhaustion (261/564 doctors, 46%) and depersonalisation (237 doctors, 42%) and low levels of personal accomplishment (190 doctors, 34%) were reported. Depersonalisation scores were related to characteristics of the doctor and the practice. Male doctors reported significantly higher (p<0.001) depersonalisation than female doctors. Doctors registered with the General Medical Council under 20 years had significantly higher (p=0.005) depersonalisation scores than those registered for longer. Doctors in group practices had significantly higher (p=0.001) depersonalisation scores than single-handed practitioners. Thirty-eight doctors agreed to complete the patient survey (n=1876 patients) and audio-record consultations (n=760 consultations). Depersonalised doctors were significantly more likely (p=0.03) to consult with patients who reported seeing their 'usual doctor'. There were no significant associations between doctors' depersonalisation and their patient-rated interpersonal skills or observed patient-centredness.This is the largest number of doctors completing the MBI with the highest levels of depersonalisation reported. Despite experiencing substantial depersonalisation, doctors' feelings of burnout were not detected by patients or independent observers. Such levels of burnout are, however, worrying and imply a need for action by doctors themselves, their medical colleagues, professional bodies, healthcare organisations and the Department of Health.

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly used in primary care. The rapid availability of the test result during the patient encounter increases the potential for patients and care providers to make a direct and joint decision on disease management. Our aim was to get insight into the first experiences of patients and healthcare professionals after introducing quality-controlled HbA1c and professional glucose POCT in diabetes care in their own general practices.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study using paper questionnaires for patients, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in 13 general practices in the Netherlands. HbA1c and professional glucose POCT was introduced after training and under day-to-day quality control. Patients filled in the questionnaire immediately after the test; nurses and GPs after a minimum period of three months from the starting date. Descriptive data analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 1551 fingerstick blood POC tests were performed (1126 HbA1c; 425 Glucose). For HbA1c POCT, 84 patients, 29 nurses and 11 GPs filled in the questionnaires. For professional glucose POCT, 30 patients, 17 nurses and 8 GPs responded. Response rates varied between 24 and 56%. Patients, nurses and GPs were generally (very) satisfied with the novel POC tests. Patients were most positive about the location (in the GPs' office) and execution of the POC test (by their own nurse), and the speed of the test result. Almost all nurses indicated to have sufficient knowledge and skills to perform the test. Both nurses and GPs had confidence in the test results and indicated they experienced a higher patient satisfaction than with regular blood tests. Perceived disadvantages were the time required to regularly calibrate the devices and the extension of the consultation time because of the test. Patients, nurses and GPs generally expressed they wanted to continue performing these POC tests in routine diabetes care.ConclusionsPatients, nurses and GPs expressed (very) positive first experiences after introducing HbA1c and professional glucose testing on two high-quality POCT devices in their own general practices. Further research, with a random selection procedure of practices and patients and in other regions and countries, is recommended to confirm these findings.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined the attitudes of nurses and doctors to key patient safety concepts, evaluated differences and similarities between professional groups and assessed positive and negative attitudes to identify target areas for future training.SettingFour major governmental hospitals in the Gaza-Strip.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 424 nurses and 150 physicians working for at least 6 months in the study hospitals.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were mean scores with SD as measured for individual items and nine main patient safety domains assessed by the Attitudes to Patient Safety Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were the proportions of doctors and nurses, that gave a positive response to each item, represented as percentage of each group.ResultsNurses and doctors held moderately positive attitudes towards patient safety with five out of nine domain scores >3.5 of 5. Doctors showed slightly more positive attitudes than nurses, despite a smaller proportion of doctors having received patient safety training with 37.5% compared with 41.9% of nurses. Both professions displayed their most positive patient safety attitudes in the same domains ('team functioning' and 'working hours as a cause for error'), as well as their two most negative attitudes ('importance of patient safety in the curriculum' and 'professional incompetence as a cause of error'), demonstrating significant deficits in understanding medical errors. A specific challenge will be the negative attitudes of both professions towards patient safety training for wider dissemination of this content in the postgraduate curriculum.ConclusionPatient safety attitudes were moderately positive in both professional groups. Target of future patient safety training should be enhancing the understanding of error in medicine. Any training has to be motivating and relevant for clinicians, demonstrating its importance in ongoing professional learning.

Project description:AimTo describe variation in task shifting from GPs to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs and their practices and features of the health care systems.BackgroundRedistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill-mix of primary care teams. These developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains.MethodsData were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7,200 general practitioners (GPs) in 34 countries. Task shifting is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are as follows: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are as follows: demand for and supply of care, nurse prescribing, and professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses. Multilevel analysis is used to account for clustering of GPs in countries.FindingsCountries vary in the degree of task shifting. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health records and availability of support staff in the practice are positively associated with task shifting and GPs' working hours negatively, in line with our hypotheses. Age of the GPs is, contrary to our hypothesis, positively related to task shifting. These variables explain 11% of the variance at GP level. Two country variables are related to task shifting: a lower percentage of practices without support staff in a country and nurse prescribing rights coincide with more task shifting. The percentage of practices without support staff has the strongest relationship, explaining 73% of the country variation.

Project description:AimTo describe variation in task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries, and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs, their practices and features of the health care systems.BackgroundRedistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand for care, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill mix of primary care teams. However, these developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains, which can be rigid as a result of strict regulation, traditional attitudes and lack of trust.MethodsData were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7200 GPs in 34 countries. The dependent variable 'task shifting' is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are: institutional development of primary care; demand for and supply of care; nurse prescribing as an indicator for professional boundaries; professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses (indicated by professional training, professional associations and journals). Multilevel analysis is used to account for the clustering of GPs in countries.FindingsCountries vary in the degree of task shifting by GPs. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health record applications (as an indicator for innovativeness) and age of the GPs are significantly related to task shifting. These variables explain only little variance at the level of GPs. Two country variables are positively related to task shifting: nurse prescribing and professionalisation of primary care nursing. Professionalisation has the strongest relationship, explaining 21% of the country variation.

Project description:BackgroundThe UK Government document 5 year forward view describes the need to move chronic disease management from secondary to primary care, which will require a significant increase in the numbers of General Practice Nurses (GPNs). Until recently, there has been no specific recruitment strategy to address this increased need. In recent times, a number of solutions have been suggested to address this impending GPN recruitment crisis. For example, Health Education England (HEE) commission General Practitioners (GPs), who are members of the Advanced Training Practice Scheme (ATPS), to provide placements for student nurses within general practice.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study was undertaken, in which data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 16 GPs and 2 GPN partners*. Qualitative analysis used a framework approach and themes were cross-checked within the team and member checking was undertaken with a convenience sample of GPs. The research had ethical approval and anonymity and confidentiality were maintained.ResultsFrom the GP perspective, there were two key themes that emerged from the data. The first theme of 'fishing in the same small pond' included succession planning for the general practice workforce, the 'merry go round' of poaching staff from other practices, and the myths and misunderstandings that have grown up around general practice nursing. The second theme, 'growing your own', looked at the impact of the student nurse placements as a means to address the crisis in GPN recruitment. There was recognition of the need for cultural change in the way that GPNs are recruited, and that the ATPS was one way of helping to achieve that change. There were however a number of challenges to sustaining this cultural shift, such as the financial constrains placed upon the GP practice, and the need to function as a 'small business'.ConclusionsDespite all the challenges, the evidence is that, through the Community of Practice (CoP), the ATPS scheme is beginning to 'bear fruit', and there is a subtle but discernible move by GPs from a 'why would we?' to 'why wouldn't we?' invest in education and training for nurses in general practice. N.B. The term GPN partner* denotes a GPN who is a 'full partner' in the practice business, holding the same NHS contracts and the same status as a GP. For the purposes of the paper itself, the term GP will be used to denote both types of partner.

Dataset Information

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study.

Publications

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets