Primary care access to computed tomography for chronic headache

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Management of General Practitioners of the Hospital Districts of Ouagadougou about Migraine (Burkina Faso)

Background

Migraine is a common neurological disorder characterized by severe headache attacks that may be debilitating. The objective of this study is to determine the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners in the hospital districts of the city of Ouagadougou on migraine.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was carried out in hospital districts of Ouagadougou. The data were collected during three months from February 1 to April 30, 2020.

Results

The study included 116 general practitioners. Thirteen percent of them were suffering from migraine. All participants had previous experience with migraine diagnosis before the survey. Eighty percent of general practitioners had a good level of knowledge of ICDH-3 criteria (knowing 6-7 criteria). The most widely recognized IHS criteria were pulsatility quality (93.1%), photophobia or sonophobia (80.2%), and mild-to-moderate intensity (80%). Ninety-five (81.9%) general practitioners rarely ordered brain imaging. The most common acute treatments were nonsteroidal inflammatory drug (39.47%), paracetamol (44.74%), and derivate of ergot (3.95%). The most common preventive treatments were amitriptyline (27.8%), derivate of ergot (18.9%), and NSAID (16.7%). The majority of general practitioners (56.9%) have referred headache patients to a colleague or specialist.

Conclusions

Our study found that diagnostic criteria and acute treatment of migraine were well known by the majority of general practitioners, in contrast of preventive treatment.

Management of chronic headache with referral from primary care to direct access to MRI compared with Neurology services: an observational prospective study in London

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost, accessibility and patient satisfaction implications of two clinical pathways used in the management of chronic headache.

INTERVENTION

Management of chronic headache following referral from Primary Care that differed in the first appointment, either a Neurology appointment or an MRI brain scan.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A pragmatic, non-randomised, prospective, single-centre study at a Central Hospital in London.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with chronic headache referred from primary to secondary care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated using primary and secondary care databases and questionnaires quarterly up to 12 months postrecruitment. Cost analyses were compared using generalised linear models. Secondary outcomes assessed: access to care, patient satisfaction, headache burden and self-perceived quality of life using headache-specific (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and a generic questionnaire (5-level EQ-5D).

RESULTS

Mean (SD) cost up to 6 months postrecruitment per participant was £578 (£420) for the Neurology group (n=128) and £245 (£172) for the MRI group (n=95), leading to an estimated mean cost difference of £333 (95% CI £253 to £413, p<0.001). The mean cost difference at 12 months increased to £518 (95% CI £401 to £637, p<0.001). When adjusted for baseline and follow-up imbalances between groups, this remained statistically significant. The utilisation of brain MRI improved access to care compared with the Neurology group (p<0.001). Participants in the Neurology group reported higher levels of satisfaction associated with the pathway and led to greater change in care management.

CONCLUSION

Direct referral to brain MRI from Primary Care led to cost-savings and quicker access to care but lower satisfaction levels when compared with referral to Neurology services. Further research into the use of brain MRI for a subset of patient population more likely to be reassured by a negative brain scan should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02753933.

Should GPs have direct access to imaging for headache? A qualitative study of patients' views in the UK

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe patients' views of a new referral pathway of general practitioner (GP) direct access to MRI, versus imaging after referral to a specialist.

DESIGN

This qualitative study involved 20 semistructured interviews. Twenty patients (10 from each pathway) were purposively recruited and interviewed to describe their attitudes.

SETTING

A neurology headache clinic and neuroradiology services from the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth in South London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients were involved in this study.

RESULTS

Over half of the participants felt relieved once they received their scan results, while some remained uncertain about the underlying cause of their symptoms. Some participants described a long wait to see a specialist. Others described a long wait time to receive scan results, especially from their GP. Spontaneous reduction in headache symptoms occurred for some participants and for others, normal imaging results allowed them to focus more on symptom management.

CONCLUSION

Relief was reported especially when scan results had been explained clearly and without too much delay. Those with continuing pain focused on how to get relief from symptoms. Patient experience might be improved with clearer information from GPs about how patients can access results, standard reporting procedures and closer liaison between neuroradiology and GPs.

A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care

BACKGROUND

Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies.

CONCLUSION

The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay.

AIM

To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively.

RESULTS

The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high.

CONCLUSION

GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

Primary care management of headaches and how direct-access MRI fits: a qualitative study of UK general practitioners' views

OBJECTIVES

To develop a better understanding of general practitioners' (GPs) views and experiences of the management of patients with headaches and use of direct-access MRI scans, and observe outcomes of an educational session offered by a GP with a special interest (GPwSI) to GPs.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed using thematic analysis. A GPwSI in headaches visited practices delivering a talk on headache medication, diagnosis and management.

SETTING

Sixteen (16) primary care family practices in South London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty (20) GPs.

RESULTS

Not all GPs were aware of the availability of direct-access MRI, but all acknowledged having used referral or direct scans to manage patients' concern about their headaches. A normal scan result helped resolve uncertainty for patient and GP and helped management towards discussion of preventative treatment. However, patients with psychological and/or severe headache symptoms could not necessarily be reassured. GPs reported difficulty interpreting radiology reports, particularly incidental abnormalities. Those who received the educational talk gained knowledge in diagnosis and medication, improving their confidence in management.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased access to imaging, training in headache management, addressing physical and psychological symptoms and standardised reporting of scans may improve GPs' use of direct-access MRI in the future.

Outpatient services and primary care: scoping review, substudies and international comparisons

Aim

This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B.Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.

Findings from the scoping review

Evidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals.

Findings from the substudies

Because of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS.

Conclusions

For many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience.

Funding

The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Demand management for planned care: a realist synthesis

Background

The task of matching fluctuating demand with available capacity is one of the basic challenges in all large-scale service industries. It is a particularly pressing concern in modern health-care systems, as increasing demand (ageing populations, availability of new treatments, increased patient knowledge, etc.) meets stagnating supply (capacity and funding restrictions on staff and services, etc.). As a consequence, a very large portfolio of demand management strategies has developed based on quite different assumptions about the source of the problem and about the means of its resolution.

Methods

This report presents a substantial review of the effectiveness of main strategies designed to alleviate demand pressures in the area of planned care. The study commences with an overview of the key ideas about the genesis of demand and capacity problems for health services. Many different diagnoses were uncovered: fluctuating demand meeting stationary capacity; turf protection between different providers; social rather than clinical pressures on referral decisions; self-propelling diagnostic cascades; supplier-induced demand; demographic pressures on treatment; and the informed patient and demand inflation. We then conducted a review of the key ideas (programme theories) underlying interventions designed to address demand imbalance. We discovered that there was no close alignment between purported problems and advocated solutions. Demand management interventions take their starting point in seeking reforms at the levels of strategic decision-making, organisational re-engineering, procedural modifications and behavioural change. In mapping the ideas for reform, we also noted a tendency for programme theories to become ‘whole-system’ models; over time policy-makers have advocated the need for concerted action on all of these fronts.

Findings

The remainder and core of the report contains a realist synthesis of the empirical evidence on the effectiveness on a spanning subset of four major demand management interventions: referral management centres (RMCs); using general practitioners with special interests (GPwSIs) at the interface between primary and secondary care; general practitioner (GP) direct access to clinical tests; and referral guidelines. In all cases we encountered a chequered pattern of success and failure. The primary literature is replete with accounts of unanticipated problems and unintended effects. These programmes ‘work’ only in highly circumscribed conditions. To give brief examples, we found that the success of RMCs depends crucially on the balance of control in their governance structures; GPwSIs influence demand only after close negotiations on an agreed and intermediate case mix; significant efficiencies are created by direct GP access to tests mainly when there is low diagnostic yield and high ‘rule-out’ rates; and referral guidelines are more likely to work when implemented by staff with responsibility for their creation.

Conclusions

The report concludes that there is no ‘preferred intervention’ that has the capacity to outperform all others. Instead, the review found many, diverse, hard-won, local and adaptive solutions. Whatever the starting point, success in demand management depends on synchronising a complex array of strategic, organisational, procedural and motivational changes. The final chapter offers practitioners some guidance on how they might ‘think through’ all of the interdependencies, which bring demand and capacity into equilibrium. A close analysis of the implementation of different configurations of demand management interventions in different local contexts using mixed methods would be valuable to understand the processes through which such interventions are tailored to local circumstances. There is also scope for further evidence synthesis. The substitution theory is ubiquitous in health and social care and a realist synthesis to compare the fortunes of different practitioners placed at different professional boundaries (e.g. nurses/doctors, dentists/dental care practitioners, radiologists/radiographers and so on) would be valuable to identify the contexts and mechanisms through which substitution, support or short-circuit occurs.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Prevalence of normal head CT and positive CT findings in a large cohort of patients with chronic headaches

This study was carried out to ascertain the frequency of normal head computed tomography (CT) scans and positive CT scan findings in patients having chronic headache as chief complaint. Head CT scans done over a period of two years were retrospectively evaluated. On the basis of CT reports, the patients were divided into two groups: Group A, having headache as the only complaint, and Group B, having headache and additional neurological signs or symptoms. A total of 2498 patient reports were evaluated. There were 1772 patients in Group A and 726 patients in Group B. In Group A, 82% (n=1453) patients had normal head CT, whereas in Group B 74.5% (n=541) patients had a normal CT scan. There were 13.22% head CT scans showing significant findings in Group B, as compared to 6.2% in Group A. Both these differences were found to be statistically significant. CT findings such as infections, neoplasm, hydrocephalus, and extra-axial collections were higher in Group B when compared to Group A. CT examination in patients with isolated chronic headache is normal in high percentage of patients. The frequency and distribution of various CT findings over different age groups in a large cohort of patients presenting with chronic headache are discussed.

What is the evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist non-emergency care? A systematic review and logic model synthesis

Background

Demand management describes any method used to monitor, direct or regulate patient referrals. Several strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions targeting primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Objective

This research aimed to conduct an inclusive systematic review and logic model synthesis in order to better understand factors impacting on the effectiveness of interventions targeting referral between primary and secondary medical health care.

Design

The approach combined systematic review with logic modelling synthesis techniques to develop an evidence-based framework of factors influencing the pathway between interventions and system-wide changes.

Setting

Primary health care.

Main outcome measures

Referral from primary to secondary care.

Review methods

Systematic searches were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. Quality of individual studies was appraised, with consideration of overall strength of evidence. A narrative synthesis and logic model summary of the data was completed.

Results

From a database of 8327 unique papers, 290 were included in the review. The intervention studies were grouped into four categories of education interventions (n = 50); process change interventions (n = 49); system change interventions (n = 38); and patient-focused interventions (n = 3). Effectiveness was assessed variously in these papers; however, there was a gap regarding the mechanisms whereby these interventions lead to demand management impacts. The findings suggest that, although individual-level interventions may be popular, the stronger evidence relates only to peer-review and feedback interventions. Process change interventions appeared to be more effective when the change resulted in the specialist being provided with more or better quality information about the patient. System changes including the community provision of specialist services by general practitioners, outreach provision by specialists and the return of inappropriate referrals appeared to have evidence of effect. The pathway whereby interventions might lead to service-wide impact was complex, with multiple factors potentially acting as barriers or facilitators to the change process. Factors related, first, to the doctor (including knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and previous experiences of a service), second, to the patient (including condition and social factors) and, third, to the influence of the doctor–patient relationship. We also identified a number of potentially influential factors at a local level, such as perceived waiting times and the availability of a specialist. These elements are key factors in the pathway between an intervention and intended demand management outcomes influencing both applicability and effectiveness.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the complexity of the referral process and multiple elements that will impact on intervention outcomes and applicability to a local area. Any interventions seeking to change referral practice need to address factors relating to the individual practitioner, the patient and also the situation in which the referral is taking place. These conclusions apply especially to referral management in a UK context where this whole range of factors/issues lies well within the remit of the NHS. This work highlights that intermediate outcomes are important in the referral pathway. It is recommended that researchers include measure of these intermediate outcomes in their evaluation of intervention effectiveness in order to determine where blocks to or facilitators of system-wide impact may be occurring.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004037.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence

BACKGROUND

Demand management defines any method used to monitor, direct, or regulate patient referrals. Strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions that target primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

AIM

To review the international evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHOD

Iterative, systematic searches of published and unpublished sources public health, health management, management, and grey literature databases from health care and other industries were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. A narrative synthesis of the data was completed to structure the evidence into groups of similar interventions.

RESULTS

The searches generated 8327 unique results, of which 140 studies were included. Interventions were grouped into four intervention categories: GP education (n = 50); process change (n = 49); system change (n = 38); and patient-focused (n = 3). It is clear that there is no 'magic bullet' to managing demand for secondary care services: although some groups of interventions may have greater potential for development, given the existing evidence that they can be effective in specific contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

To tackle demand management of primary care services, the focus cannot be on primary care alone; a whole-systems approach is needed because the introduction of interventions in primary care is often just the starting point of the referral process. In addition, more research is needed to develop and evaluate interventions that acknowledge the role of the patient in the referral decision.

Why do GPs with a special interest in headache investigate headache presentations with neuroradiology and what do they find?

The general practitioner with a special interest in headache offers an important contribution to the management of headache in primary care where the majority of presentations take place. A number of guidelines have been developed for neuroradiological investigation of headache, but their clinical utility and relevance is not known. Fourteen general practitioners with a special interest in headache recorded consecutive headache consultations over a 3-month period, whether patients were investigated with neuroradiology and if so the reason for investigation and outcome. Reason for investigation was compared to the guidelines published for the use in primary care. 895 patients were seen, of whom 270 (30.1%) were investigated. 47% of indications were outside the guidance framework used, the most common reason for investigation being reassurance. Of those investigated, 5.6% showed positive findings but only 1.9% of findings were felt to be of clinical significance. General practitioners with a special interest investigated with neuroradiology a greater level than general practitioners, but less than neurologists. However, yields of significant findings are broadly comparative across all groups. This report confirms other studies that suggest that even when there is a high level of clinical suspicion, yields of significant findings are very low.