Biomedical subjects

H Schers

Publications and source records attributed to H Schers.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Assessing the accuracy of a computerized decision support system for digoxin dosing in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index. OBJECTIVES: To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program. METHODS: We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0.65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0.001). The mean difference was 0.12 microg/L (SD 0.26; 95% CI 0.04, 0.19, P = 0.005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended. CONCLUSION: PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study.

STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study design, using semi-structured interviews. OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that determine non-adherence to the guidelines for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines for low back pain have been published in the past decade in various countries. In the Netherlands, general practitioners adhere to them to a fair extent, and it is unclear whether room for improvement remains. METHODS: Forty semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with twenty patients who consulted for low back pain, and with their general practitioners. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Patients often had limited expectations of the consultation. They wanted to hear a diagnosis or expected to receive simple advice. The general practitioners said they were well informed about the guideline and mostly agreed with its content. Reasons for non-adherence were mainly related to patients' experiences in the past and general practitioners' interpretations of their preferences. General practitioners stated that they were inclined to give in to patients' demands, for example the request for radiographic films or a referral to a physical therapist. In general, patients and their general practitioners were satisfied with the chosen management. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of the quality of back pain care may still be possible. Implementation strategies should aim at training physicians in communication skills, especially about subjects for debate, where patients' beliefs and experiences color their expectations.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Low back pain in general practice: reported management and reasons for not adhering to the guidelines in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for the management of low back pain have been published in the past decade, there is potential for further improvement in back pain care. AIM: To document the management of non-specific low back pain by general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands, to determine how this management of care is related to patient and physician factors, and to explore possible reasons for not adhering to the guidelines. METHOD: A prospective study was set up in which 57 GPs in 30 general practices completed a computerised questionnaire after each consultation for low back pain during a four-month period. RESULTS: Of 1640 back pain contacts, 1180 referred to non-specific low back pain. Diagnostic tests were ordered in 2% of first consultations and in 7% of follow-up consultations within one episode. The advice to stay active despite pain was given in 76% and 69% of these cases respectively. Patients were prescribed an analgesic in 53% and 41% of cases respectively (mainly NSAIDs [80%]). Patients were referred to a physiotherapist in 22% of first and in 50% of follow-up consultations. Older patients were physically examined less often, prescribed analgesics more often, and were told less often that staying active could benefit them. The advice to remain active was omitted more often when symptoms lasted longer. Only a small part of the variance in management was accounted for by patient characteristics or by differences between practices. CONCLUSION: The management of low back pain met the guidelines to a large extent. Management decisions were often related to characteristics in which the guidelines lack differentiation. Important reasons for non-adherence were perceived patients' preferences. Further implementation of guidelines will be difficult unless doctors' and patients' views are more explicitly known.

Adolescent↗