Do general practice patients with heart failure understand its nature and seriousness, and want improved information?

This study describes the extent to which patients with heart failure in general practice understand the nature and seriousness of their condition, and want more or better information about it than they currently get. The study involved a random sample of 62 patients receiving care for chronic heart failure in 30 central Auckland, New Zealand, practices. The narrative texts of personal, semi-structured interviews in late 1999 were edited (explicitly and systematically reduced and reassembled) until their interpretation was complete. Approximately 40% of the patients interviewed appeared not to understand the nature and seriousness of their heart failure condition. Two patients had accidentally discovered the diagnosis from inappropriate sources. Eleven patients (18%) expressed wanting improved information about their condition. However, to avoid harm, we did not ask patients about wants for information relating to the seriousness of their heart failure. Through patient education and counselling, providers could help patients to produce an advance written directive of wants for information.

New Zealand and United Kingdom experiences with the RAND modified Delphi approach to producing angina and heart failure criteria for quality assessment in general practice

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the development of minimum review criteria for the general practice management in New Zealand (NZ) of two chronic diseases: stable angina and systolic heart failure, and (2) to compare the NZ angina criteria with a set produced in Manchester to assess the extent to which use of the same approach to criteria development yields similar criteria.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach, based on the RAND consensus panel method, was used to produce minimum criteria for reviewing the recorded management of heart failure and angina in NZ general practice. The criteria for angina were compared with those produced in the UK, including assessment of the extent to which each set describes actions that the other panel agrees are necessary to record.

RESULTS

For each condition we report minimum criteria describing actions rated as (a) necessary to record and (b) inappropriate to take but, if taken, necessary to record. Although strong scientific evidence underpins approximately one quarter and one third, respectively, of the final sets of NZ and UK angina criteria for actions necessary to record, the NZ criteria agree strongly with the UK criteria (33 of 39 criteria, 85%) but there is less UK agreement with the NZ angina criteria (28 of 40 criteria, 70%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of scientific evidence for up to three quarters of angina care in general practice, the RAND based approach to criteria development was used in NZ to reproduce most of the UK angina criteria for actions rated as necessary to record in general practice. It is important to make explicit whether ratings of necessity and appropriateness apply to the recording of actions or to the actions themselves.

Are vocationally trained general practitioners better GPs? A review of research designs and outcomes

Implicit and explicit in reviews of and changes to vocational education for general practitioners in the 1990s is the challenge to defend the assumption that vocationally trained GPs are better GPs. This paper provides a review of the international literature which has reported on outcomes of general practice vocational training programmes. Through the review we identify both the types of research methodologies used (including a brief discussion of their strengths and limitations) and the outcomes reported of vocational training. Twenty-five studies on the outcomes of vocational training are reviewed. These studies used multiple data sources and one of four methodologies: pre- and post-training comparisons, analysis of learners' or teachers' accounts, audits of general practice or analysis of examination pass rates. When collated, the following range of outcomes from vocational training were identified: improved quality of patient care, increased knowledge, improved general practice skills, increased confidence and desirable GP attitudes and personality traits, increased adherence to practice guidelines and higher examination pass rates. The paper concludes with a summary of research and education issues which arise when we examine the question posed at the outset: are trained GPs better GPs?

Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Scores: Evaluation of Determinants in a Large-Scale Study of Patients Undergoing RARP in Belgium

To determine whether Gleason scores were concordant between prostate biopsies (bGS) and the definitive resection specimen (pGS) excised with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP); to identify clinical and pathological factors that might predict upgrading; and to evaluate how upgrading affected outcome. Between 2009 and 2016, 25 Belgian centers participated in collecting prospective data for patients that underwent RARP. We analyzed the concordance rate between the bGS and the pGS in 8021 patients with kappa statistics, and we compared concordance rates from different centers. We assessed the effect of several clinical and pathological factors on the concordance rate with logistic regression analysis. The concordance rate for the entire population was 62.9%. Upgrading from bGS to pGS occurred in 27.3% of patients. The number of biopsies was significantly associated with concordance. Older age (>60 y), a higher clinical T stage (≥cT2), a higher PSA value at the time of biopsy (>10 ng/ml), and more time between the biopsy and the radical prostatectomy were significantly associated with a higher risk of upgrading. Positive margins and PSA relapse occurred more frequently in upgraded patients. Center size did not significantly affect the concordance rate (p = 0.40).This prospective, nationwide analysis demonstrated a Gleason score concordance rate of 62.9%. Upgrading was most frequently observed in the non-concordant group. We identified clinical and pathological factors associated with (non)-concordance. Upgrading was associated with a worse oncological outcome. Center volume was not associated with pathological accuracy.