<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?journal=bmcfampract&amp;quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>BMC Family Practice - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcfampract/</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by BMC Family Practice</description>
        <dc:date>2009-12-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/82" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/81" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/80" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/79" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/78" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/77" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/76" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/75" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/74" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/73" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/82">
        <title>Doctor-patient communication with people with intellectual disability - a qualitative study </title>
        <description>Background:
People with intellectual disability (ID) expressed dissatisfaction with doctor-patient communication and mentioned certain preferences for this communication (our research). Since many people with ID in the Netherlands have recently moved from residential care facilities to supported accommodations in the community, medical care for them was transferred from ID physicians (IDPs) to general practitioners (GPs) in the vicinity of the new accommodation. We addressed the following research question: &apos;What are the similarities and differences between the communication preferences of people with ID and the professional criteria for doctor-patient communication by GPs?&apos;
Methods:
A focus group meeting and interviews were used to identify the preferences of 12 persons with ID for good communication with their GP; these were compared with communication criteria used to assess trainee GPs, as described in the MAAS-Global manual.
Results:
Eight preferences for doctor-patient communication were formulated by the people with ID. Six of them matched the criteria used for GPs. Improvements are required as regards the time available for consultation, demonstrating physical examinations before applying them and triadic communication.
Conclusions:
People with ID hold strong views on communication with their doctors during consultations. GPs, people with ID and their support workers can further fine-tune their communication skills.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/82</link>
                <dc:creator>Magda Wullink</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Wemke Veldhuijzen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Henny van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Job Metsemakers</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Geert-Jan Dinant</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:82</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-82</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>82</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-17T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/81">
        <title>Implementing a fax referral program for quitline 
smoking cessation services in urban health centers: a qualitative study

</title>
        <description>Background:
Fax referral services that connect smokers to state quitlines have been implemented in 49 U.S. states and territories and promoted as a simple solution to improving smoker assistance in medical practice. This study is an in-depth examination of the systems-level changes needed to implement and sustain a fax referral program in primary care.
Methods:
The study involved implementation of a fax referral system paired with a chart stamp prompting providers to identify smoking patients, provide advice to quit and refer interested smokers to a state-based fax quitline. Three focus groups (n=26) and eight key informant interviews were conducted with staff and physicians at two clinics after the intervention. We used the Chronic Care Model as a framework to analyze the data, examining how well the systems changes were implemented, the impact of these changes on care processes, and to develop recommendations for improvement.
Results:
Physicians and staff described numerous benefits of the fax referral program for providers and patients but pointed out significant barriers to full implementation, including the time-consuming process of referring patients to the Quitline, substantial patient resistance and limitations in information and care delivery systems for referring and tracking smokers. Respondents identified several strategies for improving integration, including simplification of the referral form, enhanced teamwork, formal assignment of responsibility for referrals, ongoing staff training and patient education. Improvements in Quitline feedback were needed to compensate for clinics&apos; limited internal information systems for tracking smokers.
Conclusions:
Establishing sustainable linkages to quitline services in clinical sites requires knowledge of existing patterns of care and tailored organizational changes to ensure new systems are prioritized, easily integrated into current office routines, formally assigned to specific staff members, and supported by internal systems that ensure adequate tracking and follow up of smokers. Ongoing staff training and patient self-management techniques are also needed to ease the introduction of new programs and increase their acceptability to smokers.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/81</link>
                <dc:creator>Jennifer Cantrell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Donna Shelley</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:81</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-81</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>81</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-17T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/80">
        <title>Experience as a doctor in the developing world: does it benefit the clinical and organisational performance in general practice?</title>
        <description>Background:
Many physicians have medical experience in developing countries early in their career, but its association with their medical performance later is not known.  To explore possible associations we compared primary care physicians (GPs) with and without professional experience in a developing country in performance both clinical and organisational.
Methods:
A retrospective survey using two databases to analyse clinical and organisational performance respectively.  Analysis was done at the GP level and practice level.517 GP&apos;s received a questionnaire regarding relevant working experience in a developing country. Indicators for clinical performance were: prescription, referral, external diagnostic procedures and minor procedures. We used the district health insurance data base covering 570.000 patients. Explorative secondary analysis of practice visits of 1004 GPs in 566 practices in the Netherlands from 1999 till 2001. We used a validated practice visit method (VIP; 385 indicators in 51 dimensions of practice management) to compare having experience in a developing country or not.
Results:
Almost 8% of the GPs had experience in a developing country of at least two years.These GP&apos;s referred 9,5 % less than their colleagues and did more surgical procedures. However, in the multivariate analysis &apos;experience in a developing country&apos; was not significantly associated with clinical performance or with other GP- and practice characteristics. 16 % of the practices a GP or GPs with at least two years experience in a developing country. They worked more often in group and rural practices with less patients per fte GP and more often part-time. These practices are more hygienic, collaborate more with the hospital and score better on organisation of the practice. These practices score less on service and availability, spend less time on patients in the consultation and the quality of recording in the EMD is lower.
Conclusions:
We found interesting differences in clinical and organisational performance between GP&apos;s with and without medical experience in developing countries and between their practices. It is not possible to attribute these differences to this experience, because the choice for medical experience in a tropical country probably reflects individual differences in professional motivation and personality. Experience in a developing country may be just as valuable for later performance in general practice as experience at home.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/80</link>
                <dc:creator>Pieter van den Hombergh</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Niek de Wit</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Frank van Balen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:80</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-15T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-80</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>80</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-15T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/79">
        <title>Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care</title>
        <description>Background:
Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.
Methods:
We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.
Results:
Women showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p=0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p=0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p&lt;0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p=0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p=0.01).  For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men.  In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.
Conclusions:
We found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient&apos;s gender.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/79</link>
                <dc:creator>Stefan Bosner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jorg Haasenritter</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maren Hani</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Heidi Keller</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andreas Sonnichsen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Konstantinos Karatolios</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Juergen Schaefer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Erika Baum</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Norbert Donner-Banzhoff</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:79</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-14T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-79</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>79</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-14T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/78">
        <title>Evaluation of prescribing patterns in a German network of 
CAM physicians for the treatment of patients with 
hypertension: a prospective observational study</title>
        <description>Background:
The management of hypertension is a key challenge in modern health systems. This study aimed to investigate hypertension treatment strategies among physicians specialized in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Germany by analysing prescribing patterns and comparing these to the current treatment guidelines issued by the German Hypertension Society.
Methods:
In this prospective, multicentre observational study, which included 25 primary care physicians specialized in CAM treatment, prescriptions and diagnoses were analysed for each consecutive hypertensive patient using routine electronic data. Data analysis was performed using univariate statistical tests (Chi square test, Cochran-Armitage trend test). Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with antihypertensive medication.
Results:
In the year 2005, 1320 patients with 3278 prescriptions were included (mean age =  64.2 years (SD = 14.5), 63.5% women). Most patients were treated with conventional antihypertensive monotherapies (n = 838, 63.5%). Beta-blockers were the most commonly prescribed monotherapy (30.7%), followed by ACE inhibitors (24.0%). Combination treatment usually consisted of two antihypertensive drugs administered either as separate agents or as a coformulation. The most common combination was a diuretic plus an ACE inhibitor (31.2% of dual therapies). Patient gender, age, and comorbidities significantly influenced which treatment was prescribed. 187 patients (14.2%) received one or more CAM remedies, most of which were administered in addition to classic monotherapies (n = 104). Men (OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54-0.80) and patients with diabetes (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.42-0.0.73), hypercholesterolaemia (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.47-0.75), obesity (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97), stroke (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40-0.74), or prior myocardial infarction (OR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.81) were less likely to receive CAM treatment.
Conclusions:
The large majority of antihypertensive treatments prescribed by CAM physicians in the present study complied with the current German Hypertension Society treatment guidelines. Deviations from the guidelines were observed in one of every seven patients receiving some form of CAM treatment.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/78</link>
                <dc:creator>Elke Jeschke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Ostermann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Horst Vollmar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Matthias Kroz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Angelina Bockelbrink</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Claudia Witt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stefan Willich</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Harald Matthes</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:78</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-10T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-78</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>78</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-10T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/77">
        <title>Cardiovascular risk factor assessment after pre-eclampsia in primary care.</title>
        <description>Background:
Pre-eclampsia is associated with an increased risk of development of cardiovascular disease later in life. It is not known how general practitioners in the Netherlands care for these women after delivery with respect to cardiovascular risk factor management.
Methods:
Review of medical records of 1196 women in four primary health care centres, who were registered from January 2000 until July 2007 with an International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) code indicating pregnancy. Records were searched for indicators of pre-eclampsia. Of those who experienced pre-eclampsia and of a random sample of 150 women who did not, the following information on cardiovascular risk factor management after pregnancy was extracted from the records: frequency and timing of blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose measurements - and vascular diagnoses. Additionally the sensitivity and specificity of ICPC coding for pre-eclampsia were determined.
Results:
35 women experienced pre-eclampsia. Blood pressure was more often checked after pregnancy in these women than in controls (57.1% vs. 12.0%, p &lt; 0.001). In 50% of the cases blood pressure was measured within 3 months after delivery with no further follow-up visit. A check for glucose and cholesterol levels was rare, and equally frequent in PE and control women. 20% of the previously normotensive women in the PE group had hypertension at one or more occasions after three months post partum versus none in the control group. The ICPC coding for pre-eclampsia showed a sensitivity of 51.4% and a specificity of 100.0%.
Conclusion:
Despite the evidence of increased risk of future cardiovascular disease in women with a history of pre-eclampsia, follow-up of these women is insufficient and undeveloped in primary care in the Netherlands.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/77</link>
                <dc:creator>Marie-Elise Nijdam</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Monique Timmerman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Arie Franx</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hein Bruinse</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mattijs Numans</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Diederick Grobbee</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michiel Bots</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:77</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-77</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>77</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-08T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/76">
        <title>Far from easy and accurate - detection of metabolic syndrome by general practitioners</title>
        <description>Background:
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a major public health challenge. General practitioners (GPs) could play a key role in its recognition. However, it often remains undiagnosed in primary care. This study assesses how well GPs and patients recognise MetS among patients with coronary heart disease or at least one of its risk factors.
Methods:
Twenty-six health centres around Finland were randomly selected for the purpose of identifying, over a two-week period in April 2005, patients meeting the inclusion criteria of coronary heart disease or one of its risk factors. GPs and identified patients (n = 1880) were asked to complete surveys that included a question about the patient&apos;s MetS status. A trained nurse conducted health checks (n = 1180) of the identified patients, utilising criteria of MetS modified from the National Cholesterol Program. Data from the GPs&apos; survey were compared with those from the health check to establish the extent of congruence of identification of MetS.
Results:
Almost half (49.4%) of the patients met the criteria of MetS as established by objective measures. However, in the GPs&apos; survey responses, only 28.5% of the patients were identified as having MetS. Additionally, these groups of MetS patients were not congruent. The sensitivity of the GPs&apos; diagnosis of MetS was 0.31 with a specificity of 0.73. Only 7.1% of the study patients stated that they were suffering from MetS.
Conclusion:
Detection of MetS is inaccurate among GPs in Finland. Most patients were not aware of having MetS. The practical relevance of MetS in primary care should be reconsidered.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/76</link>
                <dc:creator>Eeva-Eerika Helminen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Pekka Mantyselka</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Irma Nykanen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Esko Kumpusalo</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:76</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-76</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>76</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/75">
        <title>A patient recall program to enhance decisions about prostate cancer screening: A feasibility study
</title>
        <description>Background:
Lack of time and competing demands limit the ability of patients and providers to engage in informed decision-making discussions about prostate cancer screening during primary care visits. We evaluated a patient recall invervention to mitigate these challenges.
Methods:
Using mail and telephone outreach we invited men age 50-74 years without a PSA test in the prior 12 months to make appointments with their primary care providers in order to discuss the pros and cons of PSA-based prostate cancer screening. We assessed patient responsiveness to the program, provider documentation of screening discussions, orders for PSA laboratories, and provider attitudes.
Results:
Out of 80 eligible patients, 37 (46%) scheduled and 28 (35%) completed a recall appointment. A large majority (91%) of patients eligible for PSA screening received an order for this test. Providers documented PSA discussions more often for these patients than for a recent sample of their other patients who received traditional care (47.8% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.009). Twelve of 14 participating providers felt the program improved their ability to impart information about the risks and benefits of screening, but were uncertain whether it influenced their patients&apos; preexisting preferences for screening. Some expressed doubts about the advisability of PSA-specific appointments.
Conclusion:
To a limited extent, this pilot recall intervention enhanced opportunities for discussions of prostate cancer screening between patients and their primary care providers. As currently configured, however, this program was not found to be feasible for this purpose. A future version should promote screening discussions in the context of a broader range of health maintenance concerns and include more detailed, low-literacy information to educate patients in advance of clinic visits.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/75</link>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Denberg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Manisha Bhide</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alyssa Soenksen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Trina Mizrahi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Laura Shields</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chen-Tan Lin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:75</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-75</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>75</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/74">
        <title>Labour intensity of guidelines may have a greater effect on adherence than GPs&apos; workload</title>
        <description>Background:
Physicians&apos; heavy workload is often thought to jeopardise the quality of care and to be a barrier to improving quality. The relationship between these has, however, rarely been investigated. In this study quality of care is defined as care &apos;in accordance with professional guidelines&apos;. In this study we investigated whether GPs with a higher workload adhere less to guidelines than those with a lower workload and whether guideline recommendations that require a greater time investment are less adhered to than those that can save time.
Methods:
Data were used from the Second Dutch National survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2). This nationwide study was carried out between April 2000 and January 2002.A multilevel logistic-regression analysis was conducted of 170,677 decisions made by GPs, referring to 41 Guideline Adherence Indicators (GAIs), which were derived from 32 different guidelines. Data were used from 130 GPs, working in 83 practices with 98,577 patients. GP-characteristics as well as guideline characteristics were used as independent variables. Measures include workload (number of contacts), hours spent on continuing medical education, satisfaction with available time, practice characteristics and patient characteristics. Outcome measure is an indicator score, which is 1 when a decision is in accordance with professional guidelines or 0 when the decision deviates from guidelines.
Results:
On average, 66% of the decisions GPs made were in accordance with guidelines. No relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and their adherence to guidelines. Subjective workload (measured on a five point scale) was negatively related to guideline adherence (OR = 0.95). After controlling for all other variables, the variation between GPs in adherence to guideline recommendations showed a range of less than 10%.84% of the variation in guideline adherence was located at the GAI-level. Which means that the differences in adherence levels between guidelines are much larger than differences between GPs. Guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment during the same consultation are significantly less adhered to: (OR = 0.46), while those that can save time have much higher adherence levels: OR = 1.55). Recommendations that reduce the likelihood of a follow-up consultation for the same problem are also more often adhered to compared to those that have no influence on this (OR = 3.13).
Conclusion:
No significant relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and adherence to guidelines. However, guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment are significantly less well adhered to while those that can save time are significantly more often adhered to.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/74</link>
                <dc:creator>Michael van den Berg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dinny de Bakker</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Spreeuwenberg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gert Westert</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joze Braspenning</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jouke van der Zee</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Groenewegen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:74</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-74</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>74</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/73">
        <title>Somatisation in primary care: experiences of primary care physicians involved in a training program and in a randomised controlled trial</title>
        <description>Background:
A new intervention aimed at managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) based on a specific set of communication techniques was developed, and tested in a cluster randomised clinical trial. Due to the modest results obtained and in order to improve our intervention we need to know the GPs&apos; attitudes towards patients with MUS, their experience, expectations and the utility of the communication techniques we proposed and the feasibility of implementing them. Physicians who took part in 2 different training programs and in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients with MUS were questioned to ascertain the reasons for the doctors&apos; participation in the trial and the attitudes, experiences and expectations of GPs about the intervention.
Methods:
A qualitative study based on four focus groups with GPs who took part in a RCT. A content analysis was carried out.
Results:
Following the RCT patients are perceived as true suffering persons, and the relationship with them has improved in GPs of both groups. GPs mostly valued the fact that it is highly structured, that it made possible a more comfortable relationship and that it could be applied to a broad spectrum of patients with psychosocial problems. Nevertheless, all participants consider that change in patients is necessary; GPs in the intervention group remarked that that is extremely difficult to achieve.
Conclusion:
GPs positively evaluate the communication techniques and the interventions that help in understanding patient suffering, and express the enormous difficulties in handling change in patients. These findings provide information on the direction in which efforts for improving intervention should be directed.Trial registrationUS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00130988</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/10/73</link>
                <dc:creator>Jose Aiarzaguena</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Idoia Gaminde</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gonzalo Grandes</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Agustin Salazar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Itziar Alonso</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alvaro Sanchez</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:73</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-25T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-73</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Family Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1471-2296</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>73</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-25T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
