PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Michael Laurence

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Laurence.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Reasons underpinning patients' preferences for various angina treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To elicit patients' preferences for the treatment of angina. DESIGN: Angina patients were interviewed in order to elicit their personal reasons underlying preferences for various treatment options. Interviews followed a general repertory grid technique, in which seven treatment options were presented to patients in triads. Treatments considered ranged from medication to invasive revascularization therapies, with a 'no treatment' option. SETTING: Two general practices in Norwich, Norfolk. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one patients with diagnosed angina, which was both mild and stable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment preferences verbalized by patients during interview, and the underlying reasons for these. RESULTS: Attitudes voiced towards the range of treatments for angina were diverse; 27 different reasons underlying patients' preferences were identified. Patients' preferences were largely justified by reasons associated with the conditional effectiveness or otherwise of treatments. When presented with treatment triads, medication (drug) treatments were over 2.5 times more likely to be chosen as a most preferred option than invasive or surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments were generally considered to be 'effective', it was perceived that they were more appropriate for situations when the condition became life-threatening. There were occasions, however, when preferences were driven by other reasons, such as a desire to avoid surgery because it was perceived negatively as 'invasive' and 'frightening'. Drug treatments were viewed as 'quick', 'easy' and reversible. Personal experiences of the effectiveness or otherwise of treatments were frequently cited as reasons for stated preferences. However, patients often commented that they would prefer the doctor to make the decision about their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients choices among treatments was largely driven by perceptions of their effectiveness or otherwise. Although surgery was perceived as 'effective' it was also seen as conditionally so, dependent upon severity of the condition - which is not necessarily the case, as the risks of adverse events and surgical complications increase for emergency cases. As such, access to better information about the effectiveness and timeliness of interventions is needed. Although respondents held anxieties about treatment, particularly invasive or surgical treatments, fewer choices were driven by emotional and lifestyle factors unrelated to 'effectiveness', such as fear or ease of treatment.

Adult↗

Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Clinical Terms Version 3 provides greater accuracy and consistency in coding electronic patient records than the Read Codes 5 byte set. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. Clinicians coded patient records using both schemes after being randomised in pairs to use one scheme before the other. SETTING: 10 general practices in urban, suburban, and rural environments in Norfolk. PARTICIPANTS: 10 general practitioners. SOURCE OF DATA: Concepts were collected from records of 100 patient encounters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of coded choices ranked as being exact representations of the original terms; percentage of cases where coding choice of paired general practitioners was identical; length of time taken to find a code. RESULTS: A total of 995 unique concepts were collected. Exact matches were more common with Clinical Terms (70% (95% confidence interval 67% to 73%)) than with Read Codes (50% (47% to 53%)) (P < 0.001), and this difference was significant for each of the 10 participants individually. The pooled proportion with exact and identical matches by paired participants was greater for Clinical Terms (0.58 (0.55 to 0.61)) than Read Codes (0.36 (0.33 to 0.39)) (P < 0.001). The time taken to code with Clinical Terms (30 seconds per term) was not significantly longer than that for Read Codes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical Terms Version 3 performed significantly better than Read Codes 5 byte set in capturing the meaning of concepts. These findings suggest that improved coding accuracy in primary care electronic patient records can be achieved with the use of such a clinical terminology.

Adult↗

A methodology for the functional comparison of coding schemes in primary care.

There has been massive investment in the development of clinical terminologies for use in electronic patient records. However, there has been little published evidence for the added value for primary care that implementation of such a terminology would offer. This paper outlines a methodology that has been used to compare two existing coding schemes (Read codes 5 byte set and Clinical Terms Version 3-CTV3) and demonstrates their relative performance using a certainty-agreement diagram. In the study described, CTV3 offers improved accuracy and consistency with improved usability. The potential advantages of the recently released terminology, SNOMED Clinical Terms, are briefly considered in this context.

Family Practice↗