In-house referral: a primary care alternative to immediate secondary care referral? Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to evaluate guidelines for the management of infertility across the primary care-secondary care interface. Can computer-generated evidence-based care suggestions enhance evidence-based management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A randomized, controlled trial. Primary care guidelines on consultation practices: the effectiveness of computerized versus paper-based versions. A cluster randomized controlled trial among newly qualified primary care physicians. Modifying dyspepsia management in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial of educational outreach compared with passive guideline dissemination. Improving referrals for glue ear from primary care: are multiple interventions better than one alone? Failure of Internet-based audit and feedback to improve quality of care delivered by primary care residents. Does an encouraging letter encourage attendance at psychiatric out-patient clinics? The Leeds PROMPTS randomized study. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Do local opinion leaders augment hospital quality improvement efforts? A randomized trial to promote adherence to unstable angina guidelines. Effects of a multidisciplinary, post-discharge continuance of care intervention on quality of life, discharge satisfaction, and hospital length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. The North Dublin randomized controlled trial of structured diabetes shared care. A randomized trial of a screening, case finding, and referral system for older veterans in primary care. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". The impact of tailored interventions on a community health center population. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Methods are needed to ensure that those patients referred from primary to secondary care are those most likely to benefit. In-house referral is the referral of a patient by a general practitioner to another general practitioner within the same practice for a second opinion on the need for secondary care referral.
                To describe whether in-house referral is practical and acceptable to patients, and the health outcomes for patients.
                Practices were randomized into an intervention or a control group. In intervention practices, patients with certain conditions who were about to be referred to secondary care were referred in-house. If the second clinician agreed referral was appropriate the patient was referred on to secondary care. In control practices patients were referred in the usual fashion. Patient satisfaction and health status was measured at the time of referral, 6 months and one year.
                Eight intervention and seven control practices took part. For the 177 patients referred in-house, 109 (61%) were judged to need referral on to secondary care. For patient satisfaction, the only difference between the groups studied was that at 12 months patients who had been referred in-house reported themselves as being more satisfied than those referred directly to hospital. For health status, the only difference found was that at the time of referral, patients who had been referred in-house and judged to need hospital referral reported themselves as being less able on the 'Physical function' subscale of the SF-36 than patients who were referred in-house and judged to not need hospital referral.
                In-house referral is acceptable to patients and provides a straightforward method of addressing uncertainty over the need for referral from primary to secondary care. To investigate the effect of clinical guidelines on the management of infertility across the primary care-secondary care interface.
                Cluster randomised controlled trial.
                General practices and NHS hospitals accepting referrals for infertility in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area. Participants: All 221 general practices in Glasgow; 214 completed the trial.
                General practices in the intervention arm received clinical guidelines developed locally. Control practices received them one year later. Dissemination of the guidelines included educational meetings.
                The time from presentation to referral, investigations completed in general practice, the number and content of visits as a hospital outpatient, the time to reach a management plan, and costs for referrals from the two groups.
                Data on 689 referrals were collected. No significant difference was found in referral rates for infertility. Fewer than 1% of couples were referred inappropriately early. Referrals from intervention practices were significantly more likely to have all relevant investigations carried out (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.75, P=0.025). 70% of measurements of serum progesterone concentrations during the midluteal phase and 34% of semen analyses were repeated at least once in hospital, despite having been recorded as normal when checked in general practice. No difference was found in the proportion of referrals in which a management plan was reached within one year or in the mean duration between first appointment and date of management plan. NHS costs were not significantly affected.
                Dissemination of infertility guidelines by commonly used methods results in a modest increase in referrals having recommended investigations completed in general practice, but there are no detectable differences in outcome for patients or reduction in costs. Clinicians in secondary care tended to fail to respond to changes in referral practice by doctors. Guidelines that aim to improve the referral process need to be disseminated and implemented so as to lead to changes in both primary care and secondary care. Translation of evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice has been inconsistent. We performed a randomized, controlled trial of guideline-based care suggestions delivered to physicians when writing orders on computer workstations.
                Inner-city academic general internal medicine practice.
                Randomized, controlled trial of 246 physicians (25 percent faculty general internists, 75 percent internal medicine residents) and 20 outpatient pharmacists. We enrolled 706 of their primary care patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Care suggestions concerning drugs and monitoring were delivered to a random half of the physicians and pharmacists when writing orders or filling prescriptions using computer workstations. A 2 x 2 factorial randomization of practice sessions and pharmacists resulted in four groups of patients: physician intervention, pharmacist intervention, both interventions, and controls. DATA EXTRACTION/COLLECTION METHODS: Adherence to the guidelines and clinical activity was assessed using patients' electronic medical records. Health-related quality of life, medication adherence, and satisfaction with care were assessed using telephone questionnaires.
                During their year in the study, patients made an average of five scheduled primary care visits. There were no differences between groups in adherence to the care suggestions, generic or condition-specific quality of life, satisfaction with physicians or pharmacists, medication compliance, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations. Physicians receiving the intervention had significantly higher total health care costs. Physician attitudes toward guidelines were mixed.
                Care suggestions shown to physicians and pharmacists on computer workstations had no effect on the delivery or outcomes of care for patients with reactive airways disease. To compare the effects of computerized and paper-based versions of guidelines on recently qualified physicians' consultation practices.
                Two arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Physicians were randomized to receive computerized or textbook-based versions of the same guidelines for a 4-week study period. Physicians' compliance with guideline recommendations about laboratory, radiological, physical and other examinations, procedures, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments, physiotherapy, and referrals were measured by case note review.
                There were 139 recently qualified physicians working in 96 primary healthcare centers in Finland who participated in the study. Data on 4,633 patient encounters were abstracted, of which 3,484 were suitable for further analysis. Physicians' compliance with guidelines was high (over 80% for use of laboratory, radiology, physical examinations, and referrals). There were no significant differences in physicians' consultation practices in any of the measured outcomes between the computerized and textbook group.
                Guidelines are a useful source of information for recently qualified physicians working in primary care. However, the method of presentation of the guidelines (electronic or paper) does not have an effect on guideline use or their impact on decisions. Other factors should be considered when choosing the method of presentation of guidelines, such as information-seeking time, ease of use during the consultation, ability to update, production costs, and the physician's own preferences. Quality improvement initiatives in health services rely upon the effective introduction of clinical practice guidelines. However, even well constructed guidelines have little effect unless supported by dissemination and implementation strategies.
                To test the effectiveness of 'educational outreach' as a strategy for facilitating the uptake of dyspepsia management guidelines in primary care.
                A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial of guideline introduction, comparing educational outreach with postal guideline dissemination alone.
                One-hundred and fourteen general practices (233 general practitioners) in the Salford and Trafford Health authority catchment area in the northwest of England.
                All practices received guidelines by post in July 1997. The intervention group practices began to receive educational outreach three months later. This consisted of practice-based seminars with hospital specialists at which guideline recommendations were appraised, and implementation plans formulated. Seminars were followed up with 'reinforcement' visits after a further 12 weeks. Outcome measures were: (a) the appropriateness of referral for; and (b) findings at, open access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; (c) costs of GP prescriptions for acid-suppressing drugs, and (d) the use of laboratory-based serological tests for Helicobacter pylori. Data were collected for seven months before and/or after the intervention and analysed by intention-to-treat.
                (a) The proportion of appropriate referrals was higher in the intervention group in the six-month post-intervention period (practice medians: control = 50.0%, intervention = 63.9%, P < 0.05); (b) the proportion of major findings at endoscopy did not alter significantly; (c) there was a greater rise in overall expenditure on acid-suppressing drugs in the intervention as compared with the control group (+8% versus +2%, P = 0.005); and (d) the median testing rate per practice for H pylori in the post-intervention period was significantly greater in the intervention group (four versus O, P < 0.001).
                This study suggests that educational outreach may be more effective than passive guideline dissemination in changing clinical behaviour. It also demonstrates that unpredictable and unanticipated outcomes may emerge. To evaluate the effect of a risk factor checklist and training video for general practitioners in reducing inter-practice variation and improving the appropriateness of referrals (assessed by their positive predictive value or PPV) of patients with suspected otitis media with effusion (OME or 'glue ear') to secondary care.
                Fifty general practices (177 practitioners) from the NHS Trent region and the West of Scotland were cluster-randomised either to a control group (n = 12) or to one of three intervention groups (training video (n = 16), checklist (n = 11), or both (n = 11)). Data on all paediatric ear, nose and throat (ENT) referrals and diagnostic results at ENT clinics were collected for a one-year period pre- and post-intervention. Referral rates for OME and for closely related conditions were calculated for children aged 0-15 years, based on each practice's list size. PPV was defined as the proportion of referrals resulting in bilateral hearing loss > or = 20 dB at the ENT outpatient department.
                There was a significant improvement in the PPV, adjusted for patients' waiting time between general practitioner (GP) referral and being seen at the ENT department. The improvement in PPV pre- and post-intervention was 15% (95% confidence interval, CI: -12.1% to 41.7%) for the practices receiving both interventions, compared with a degradation of 20% pre- and post-intervention (95% CI: -32.9% to -6.4%) for practices receiving only one intervention and a degradation of 34% for those receiving no intervention.
                Disseminating a risk factor checklist and training video on glue ear to GPs using a multi-channel approach can improve the quality of referrals to ENT. To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based audit and feedback to physicians to improve care for diabetes and hypertension.
                Time-series analysis of an intervention.
                The study setting was Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, a 14-site multispecialty group in greater Boston. The study period was July 1997-June 1999.
                were 12 primary care internal medicine residents who provided care to adult patients with diabetes (n = 76 pre-intervention and n = 88 post-intervention), hypertension (n = 329 pre-intervention and n = 338 post-intervention), or both (n = 62 pre-intervention and n = 71 post-intervention). We determined the proportion of each resident's patients whose care fulfilled national guidelines for quality (i.e. diabetes patients had hemoglobin testing in the previous 6 months or hypertension patients received a beta-blocker or diuretic in the same time period). After meeting individually with each resident to obtain informed consent and to encourage participation, we sent each resident information for accessing his or her practice profile on a secure website. The main outcome measures were (i) the proportion of resident physicians who accessed their profiles and (ii) change following the intervention in the proportion of patients whose care followed national guidelines.
                Over a 1-year period, only four of the 12 residents accessed their websites. One of the residents visited her site three times, while the other three residents visited their sites once each. In interrupted time-series analyses, the intervention had no discernible effect on adherence to practice guidelines for diabetes or hypertension.
                The lack of participation in this Internet-based intervention may have important implications for the development of future programs that require physicians to interact with technology to improve quality of care. The aim was to reduce non-attendance for first-time consultations at psychiatric out-patient clinics.
                The study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial; the setting was seven inner-city UK out-patient clinics in Leeds. The participants were 764 subjects of working age with an appointment to attend a psychiatric out-patient clinic for the first time. The intervention was an 'orientation statement' letter delivered 24-48 h before the first appointment compared with standard care. The primary outcome measure was attendance at the first appointment; secondary outcomes included hospitalization, transfer of care, continuing attendance, discharge, presentation at accident and emergency and death by 1 year.
                Follow-up was for 763 out of 764 subjects (>99%) for primary and for 755 out of 764 subjects (98.8%) of secondary outcome data. The orientation statement significantly reduced the numbers of people failing to attend [79 out of 388 v. 101 out of 376 subjects, relative risk 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.98, number needed to treat 16, 95% CI 10-187].
                Prompting people to go to psychiatric out-patient clinics for the first time encourages them to attend. Pragmatic trials within a busy working environment are possible and informative. Latin America has a high rate of caesarean sections. We tested the hypothesis that a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion, based on the best existing scientific evidence, reduces the hospital caesarean section rate by 25%, without increasing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.
                36 hospitals in Argentina (18), Brazil (eight), Cuba (four), Guatemala (two), and Mexico (four), were randomly assigned to intervention or control in a matched pair design. All physicians in the intervention hospitals deciding a non-emergency caesarean section had to follow a policy of mandatory second opinion. The primary outcome was the overall caesarean section rate in the hospitals after a 6-month implementation period. We also assessed women's satisfaction with labour and delivery care and physicians'acceptance of the second opinion policy.
                A total of 34 hospitals attending 149?276 deliveries were randomised and completed the protocol. The mandatory second opinion policy was associated with a small but significant reduction in rates of caesarean section (relative rate reduction 7.3%; 95% CI 0.2-14.5), mostly in intrapartum sections (12.6%; 0.6-24.7). Other maternal and neonatal outcomes and women's perceptions and satisfaction with the process of care were similarly distributed between the groups.
                In hospitals applying this policy of second opinion, 22 intrapartum caesarean sections could be prevented per 1000 deliveries, without affecting maternal or perinatal morbidity, and without affecting mothers' satisfaction with the care process. The influence of an opinion leader intervention on adherence to Unstable Angina (UA) guidelines compared with a traditional quality improvement model was investigated.
                A group-randomized controlled trial with 2210 patients from 21 hospitals was designed. There were three intervention arms: (1) no intervention (NI); (2) a traditional Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP); and (3) a physician opinion leader in addition to the HCQIP model (OL). Quality indicators included: electrocardiogram within 20 minutes, antiplatelet therapy within 24 hours and at discharge, and heparin and beta-blockers during hospitalization. Hospitals could determine the specific indicators they wished to target. Potential cases of UA were identified from Medicare claims data. UA confirmation was determined by a clinical algorithm based on data abstracted from medical records. Data analyses included both hospital level analysis (analysis of variance) and patient level analysis (generalized linear models).
                The only statistically significant postintervention difference in percentage compliant was greater improvement for the OL group in the use of antiplatelet therapy at 24 hours in both hospital level (P = 0.01) and patient level analyses (P <0.05) compared with the HCQIP and NI groups. When analyses were confined to hospitals that targeted specific indicators, compared with the HCQIP hospitals, the OL hospitals showed significantly greater change in percentage compliant postintervention in both antiplatelet therapy during the first 24 hours (20.2% vs. -3.9%, P = 0.02) and heparin (31.0% vs.9.1%, P = 0.05).
                The influence of physician opinion leaders was unequivocally positive for only one of five quality indicators. To maximize adherence to best practices through physician opinion leaders, more research on how these physicians influence health care delivery in their organizations will be required. To determine the impact of a hospital-coordinated discharge care plan, involving a multidisciplinary team of primary health care providers, on hospital length of stay, quality of life, and both patient and general practitioner inclusion in, and satisfaction with, discharge procedures.
                This investigation comprised a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial.
                This multicentre and cross-jurisdictional study focused on areas of tertiary and primary health care as well as community allied health in Western Australia.
                Patients (n = 189) with chronic cardiorespiratory diagnoses were recruited from respiratory, cardiovascular, and general medical wards at two tertiary hospitals.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Intervention group patients received a discharge care plan in accordance with that outlined in the Australian Enhanced Primary Care Package, completed before discharge and sent to the patient's general practitioner and other community service providers for review. Control patients were discharged under existing hospital processes. Outcome measures. Patients and general practitioners were surveyed pre-discharge and 7 days post-discharge for quality of life and opinion of discharge procedures. Hospital length of stay was also determined.
                Significant improvements in discharge planning involvement, health service access, confidence with discharge procedures, and opinion of discharge based on previous experience were seen for patients who received the discharge care plan. Further, improved perceptions of mental quality of life were observed within the first week post-discharge for intervention patients. Length of stay showed no difference between groups. Extent and speed of hospital-general practitioner communication were significantly improved via the intervention.
                Our results indicate that a multidisciplinary discharge care plan, initiated before separation, improves quality of life, involvement, and satisfaction with discharge care, and hospital-general practitioner integration. As such, it possesses benefits over current Western Australian hospital discharge procedures for the care of chronically ill populations. A new diabetes shared care service was introduced in North Dublin. It was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a complex intervention comprising education of participating practitioners, the introduction of a community-based diabetes nurse specialist, local agreement on clinical protocols and structured communication across the primary-secondary care interface.
                Our aim was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a structured diabetes shared care service in a mixed health care system and to analyse the impact on total patient care.
                A Cluster randomized controlled trial lasting 18 months was carried out in 183 patients with type 2 diabetes from 30 general practices in North Dublin. Biophysical outcomes (HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index), psychosocial measures (smoking status and Diabetes Clinic Treatment Satisfaction and Diabetes Well-being scores) and process outcomes were collected.
                There were significant improvements in diabetes care delivery and in psychosocial outcomes, but no significant improvements in biomedical outcomes. Process data collection revealed a significant increase in diabetes care-related activity for participating patients with an increase in structured annual reviews and fewer patients defaulting from care. There were also significant improvements in information exchange between primary and secondary care.
                Structured diabetes shared care, in a mixed health care system, can produce significant improvements in diabetes care delivery and in psychosocial outcomes for patients, with improved information exchange across the primary-secondary care interface. To test whether a system of screening, assessment, referral, and follow-up provided within primary care for high-risk older outpatients improves recognition of geriatric conditions and healthcare outcomes.
                Controlled clinical trial with 3-year follow-up; intervention versus control group allocation based on practice group assignment.
                Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ambulatory care center.
                Seven hundred ninety-two community-dwelling patients aged 65 and older identified by postal screening survey.
                The intervention combined a structured telephone geriatric assessment by a physician assistant, individualized referrals and recommendations, selected referral to outpatient geriatric assessment, and ongoing telephone case management.
                Main outcomes were VA medical record evidence of recognition and evaluation of target geriatric conditions (depression, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, falls, functional impairment), functional status (Functional Status Questionnaire, FSQ), and hospitalization (VA databases and self-reported non-VA usage).
                Intervention participants were more likely to have target conditions recognized, evaluated, and referred to specialized services within 12 months of enrollment, although there were no significant differences in FSQ scores or acute hospitalization between intervention and control groups at 1, 2, or 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analyses suggested improvements in depression symptoms and functional impairment at 1-year follow-up in intervention participants with these problems at baseline, but these findings were not evident at later follow-up.
                The intervention increased recognition and evaluation of target geriatric conditions but did not improve functional status or decrease hospitalization. Innovative screening methods can identify older people in need of geriatric services, but achieving measurable improvement in functional status or hospitalization rates will likely require a more-intensive intervention than a program involving primarily unsolicited referrals and short-term consultations. Improving precision and economy in the prescribing of drugs is a goal whose importance has increased with the proliferation of new and potent agents and with growing economic pressures to contain health-care costs. We implemented an office-based physician education program to reduce the excessive use of three drug groups: cerebral and peripheral vasodilators, an oral cephalosporin, and propoxyphene. A four-state sample of 435 prescribers of these drugs was identified through Medicaid records and randomly assigned to one of three groups. Physicians who were offered personal educational visits by clinical pharmacists along with a series of mailed "unadvertisements" reduced their prescribing of the target drugs by 14 per cent as compared with controls (P = 0.0001). A comparable reduction in the number of dollars reimbursed for these drugs was also seen between the two groups, resulting in substantial cost savings. No such change was seen in physicians who received mailed print materials only. The effect persisted for at least nine months after the start of the intervention, and no significant increase in the use of expensive substitute drugs was found. Academically based "detailing" may represent a useful and cost-effective way to improve the quality of drug-therapy decisions and reduce unnecessary expenditures. We conducted a 4-year randomized study in a community health center that serves primarily low income Blacks in Durham, North Carolina. Patients (1318 at baseline) were assigned randomly to one of three study groups: provider prompting intervention alone, provider prompting and tailored print materials or the previous group and tailored telephone counseling. The purpose of the study was to determine whether increasingly intensive, tailored print and telephone interventions also were increasingly effective in promoting adherence to mammograms, Pap tests and overall cancer screening compliance. Thus, the combination of tailored print interventions (print and telephone) should have been more effective than the provider prompting intervention alone, or the print intervention and prompting combination. This is one of the few studies to examine a measure of overall cancer screening compliance and to assess the benefit of combinations of tailored interventions in promoting adherence to cancer screening. Patients gave extremely high ratings to the interventions. At the bivariate level, we found a significant effect of the most intensive group (provider prompting intervention, tailored print communications and tailored telephone counseling) on Pap test compliance (P = 0.05) and borderline significance at the multivariate level (P = 0.06) as well on overall screening compliance (P = 0.06). There was not a significant effect on mammography, probably because a majority of the patients were receiving regular mammograms. We also found some important subgroup differences. For example, a larger proportion of women reported Pap tests in the tailored print and counseling group when they believed the materials were 'meant for me.' These results show that a combination of tailored interventions may have potential for reaching the women who have too often been labeled the 'hard to reach.' Patient-centred depression care approaches should better address barriers of insufficient patient information and involvement in the treatment decision process. Additional research is needed to test the effect of increased patient participation on outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess, if patient participation in decision-making via a shared decision-making intervention leads to improved treatment adherence, satisfaction, and clinical outcome without increasing consultation time.
                Cluster-randomized controlled intervention study based on physician training and patient-centered decision aid compared to usual care in primary care settings in Südbaden region of Germany. Twenty-three primary care physicians treating 405 patients with newly diagnosed depression were enrolled. Patient involvement was measured with the patient perceived involvement in care scale (PICS) and a patient participation scale (MSH-scale). Patient satisfaction was measured by the CSQ-8 questionnaire. Treatment adherence was evaluated by patient and provider self-report. Depression severity and remission outcomes were assessed with the Brief PHQ-D.
                Physician facilitation of patient participation improved significantly and to a greater extent in the intervention compared to the control group. There was no intervention effect for depression severity reduction. Doctor facilitation of patient participation, patient-rated involvement, and physician assessment of adherence improved only in the intervention group. Patient satisfaction at post-intervention was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The consultation time did not differ between groups.
                A shared decision-making intervention was better than usual care for improving patient participation in treatment decision-making, and patient satisfaction without increasing consultation time. Additional research is needed to model causal linkages in the decision-making process in regard to outcomes.
                The study results encourage the implementation of patient participation in primary care of depression.
There are a limited number of rigorous evaluations to base policy on. Active local educational interventions involving secondary care specialists and structured referral sheets are the only interventions shown to impact on referral rates based on current evidence. The effects of 'in-house' second opinion and other intermediate primary care based alternatives to outpatient referral appear promising.