Improving the annual monitoring rates of testosterone replacement therapy patients in primary care

Introduction

Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is the treatment of choice for male hypogonadism. British Society for Sexual Medicine (BSSM) guidelines on adult testosterone deficiency recommend that TRT patients undergo annual monitoring of their testosterone levels and potential complications of treatment; though evidence suggests that substantial numbers of men on TRT are not monitored adequately.

Methods

Review of the electronic patient record from a single general practice in southwest Scotland revealed that only 1 of 26 (4%) TRT patients had been monitored as per BSSM guidelines in the previous 12 months. Additionally, when monitoring was undertaken there was inconsistency in the blood tests requested. The use of quality improvement (QI) tools including process mapping and cause-and-effect diagram identified staff and patient knowledge of monitoring requirements and the lack of an effective recall system as areas for improvement. We tested three change ideas: the utilisation of an existing recall system for long-term therapies; a TRT Ordercomms blood group template (OBGT) to standardise monitoring; and a patient information leaflet (PIL) to improve patient education. The aim of this project was to achieve 60% annual monitoring rate.

Results

The percentage of patients monitored for testosterone levels and potential TRT complications increased from 4% (1/26) to 65% (17/26) over a 7-week test period. The utilisation of the existing recall system was a particularly effective intervention, leading to an increase from 4% (1/26) to 31% (8/26) in the first 2 weeks.

Conclusion

The use of QI tools was associated with over 60% of male TRT patients receiving comprehensive annual monitoring, as per BSSM guidelines. Our findings support the hypothesis that a patient recall system, combined with an OBGT and a PIL led to this increase.

Register-Recall Systems: Tools for Chronic Disease Management in General Practice

The Divisions Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Quality Improvement Project (DDCQIP) is a national project that aims to promote quality improvement initiatives among Divisions of General Practice. DDCQIP has investigated the growth of Division-based diabetes and cardiovascular disease register-recall systems and the role they play in promoting evidence-based structured care within general practice. In the period 2000-2002, an increase in the number of GPs using register-recall systems and the rise in the number of active registered patients have made it possible to monitor quality of care and health outcome indicators, and contributed to the growth of a Division-based population health program.

Utilization of the CARDIAB®™ database system to promote quality of care in Australian general practice

This article describes quality of care and health outcome indicator data aggregated from seven Australian Divisions of General Practice, using the CARDIAB®™ register recall system, involving 4359 people with diabetes. Eighty-eight per cent of patients registered had type 2 diabetes. The process of care of these patients was evaluated in nine parameters critical to quality of care in diabetes: glycaemic control (HbA1c), blood pressure, body mass index, total cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, high density lipoprotein levels (HDL), microalbumin level, foot checks and eye checks. The data provide important baseline information for program planning, service delivery, quality assurance and quality improvement at local, state and national levels. They demonstrate the potential of CARDIAB®™ to provide support to general practice in the management of diabetes. The reach of such registers will be facilitated by increased computerization of general practice records. A policy framework which addresses key concerns was central to recruitment to the project.

Diabetes care in Ireland: a survey of general practitioners

AIM

To investigate the organisation of diabetes care in general practice in Ireland and identify areas for future development.

METHODS

Survey of a representative sample of 600 general practitioners (GPs). The questionnaire contained closed and open-ended questions addressing 4 topics; characteristics of the practice, diabetes care delivery, use of services and opportunities for developing diabetes care.

RESULTS

The response rate was 44% (n=262). There were an additional 86 responses to a follow-up shortened version of the survey resulting in a 58% response rate for 9 key questions. The majority of respondents were from an urban (43%, n=112) or a mixed area (39%, n=101) and 19% of practices were single-handed (n=66). The reported prevalence in participating practices was 0.7% for Type 1 diabetes and 2.8% for Type 2 diabetes. Forty-five percent of GPs maintained a diabetes register (n=157) while 53% reported using guidelines (n=140). A formal call recall system was reported by 30% (n=78) with a further 20% (n=54) reporting a regular if informal approach to calling patients for review. With regard to the use of diabetes related services 63% reported direct access to a dietician (n=165), 57% direct access to chiropody services (n=149) and 89% had direct access to retinopathy screening (n=234). There was a significant association between maintaining a diabetes register and other aspects of care delivery such as engaging in formal recall (p<0.001), using guidelines (p<0.001) and a declared special interest in diabetes (p=0.001). Of a number of choices 75% of GPs thought that training was the principal opportunity for improving diabetes care. In response to the open-ended questions GPs cited lack of resources, time constraints and workload as barriers to effective care delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of diabetes care in Ireland remains largely unstructured. Key challenges to improving diabetes care appear to extend to the system and organisational level of care delivery.

Chronic disease management in primary care: from evidence to policy

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of chronic disease management interventions for physical health problems in the primary care setting, and to identify policy options for implementing successful interventions in Australian primary care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with qualitative data synthesis, using the Chronic Care Model as a framework for analysis between January 1990 and February 2006. Interventions were classified according to which elements were addressed: community resources, health care organisation, self-management support, delivery system design, decision support and/or clinical information systems. Our major findings were discussed with policymakers and key stakeholders in relation to current and emerging health policy in Australia.

RESULTS

The interventions most likely to be effective in the context of Australian primary care were engaging primary care in self-management support through education and training for general practitioners and practice nurses, and including self-management support in care plans linked to multidisciplinary team support. The current Practice Incentives Payment and Service Incentives Payment programs could be improved and simplified to encourage guideline-based chronic disease management, integrating incentives so that individual patients are not managed as if they had a series of separate chronic diseases. The use of chronic disease registers should be extended across a range of chronic illnesses and used to facilitate audit for quality improvement. Training should focus on clear roles and responsibilities of the team members.

CONCLUSION

The Chronic Care Model provides a useful framework for understanding the impact of chronic disease management interventions and highlights the gaps in evidence. Consultation with stakeholders and policymakers is valuable in shaping policy options to support the implementation of the National Chronic Disease Strategy in primary care.