PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P Kinnersley

Publications and source records attributed to P Kinnersley.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

It doesn't cost anything just to ask, does it? The ethics of questionnaire-based research.

Patient-based outcome measures are increasingly important in health care evaluations, often through the use of paper-based questionnaires. The likely impact of questionnaires upon patients is not often considered and therefore, the balance of benefit and harm not fully explored. Harms that might accrue for research staff are even less frequently considered. This paper describes the use of postal questionnaires within a study of breast disease management in primary care. Questionnaire responses are used to describe the nature of discomfort or harms that may occur in such studies. Ethical issues raised by the harms are discussed in relation to the benefits of the study. Practical suggestions for reducing harm to patients are proposed. A secondary consideration, discomfort to the researcher, is also identified and suggestions made to reduce its effect. Finally, the role of research questionnaires as a study intervention is discussed.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2001

Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments.

We wanted to determine whether research instruments exist which focus on measuring to what extent health professionals involve patients in treatment and management decisions. A systematic search and appraisal of the relevant literature was conducted by electronic searching techniques, snowball sampling and correspondence with field specialists. The instruments had to concentrate on assessing patient involvement in decision-making by observation techniques (either direct or using audio or videotaped data) and contain assessments of the core aspects of 'involvement', namely evidence of patients being involved (explicitly or implicitly) in decision-making processes, a portrayal of options and a decision-making or deferring stage. Eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. But we did not find any instruments that had been specifically designed to measure the concept of 'involving patients' in decisions. The results reveal that little attention has been given to a detailed assessment of the processes of patient involvement in decision-making. The existing instrumentation only includes these concepts as sub-units within broader assessments, and does not allow the construct of patient involvement to be measured accurately. Instruments developed to measure 'patient-centeredness' are unable to provide enough focus on 'involvement' because of their attempt to cover so many dimensions. The concept of patient involvement (shared decision-making; informed collaborative choice) is emerging in the literature and requires an accurate method of assessment.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2001

A case study of nurse management of upper respiratory tract infections in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Nurses increasingly manage acute illness in United Kingdom (UK) general practice. Few data exist about patients routinely consulting with these nurses. There are concerns that providing this additional service will lower thresholds for consulting with an overall increase in workload. Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is the commonest reason for consulting. Inappropriate antibiotics promote resistant bacteria. Nurse management of URTI is an ideal opportunity to promote self-care and nonantibiotic management. AIMS: To describe the effects of a specially trained practice nurse managing URTI in a general practice in Cardiff, UK. METHODS: Descriptive study. RESULTS: Data were collected on 132 patients consulting with the nurse. We also collected data on 234 patients consulting general practitioners (GPs) in the same practice. Patients seen by the nurse were younger and less likely to be given antibiotics at the time of their index illness than those who saw GPs (7% vs. 93%; P < 0.001). During the year following the consultation with the nurse, patients consulted slightly less often and received antibiotics for URTI less often compared with the year preceding this consultation (P=0.02). Their consultation rate for all conditions did not change. The consultation rates for URTI of the patients managed by the GPs remained constant and consultations for all conditions increased (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse management of URTI did not lower patients' threshold for future consulting, and patients who saw her were prescribed antibiotics less often.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Inside the routine general practice consultation: an observational study of consultations for sore throats.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine how GPs manage the consultation for upper resiratory tract infections (URTIs) and the prescribing of antibiotics, to understand what skills and strategies are used in managing URTIs without antibiotics, and to note evidence of pressure on doctors to prescribe and whether there are signs of overt disagreement about prescribing in the consultation. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of audiotaped consultations was carried out. The setting was a general practice in South Wales and the subjects were five GPs and 29 parents presenting children with URTIs over a 2-week period. The main outcome measures were skills and strategies identified from audiotapes of consultations. RESULTS: This group of GPs used a set of readily identifiable consulting skills for managing the consultation without prescribing. Their consultations had a highly routinized quality. There was little evidence of either conflict or overt pressure from parents to prescribe. The word 'antibiotics' was seldom mentioned. Clinicians did not elicit patient expectations for receiving antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors use a set of readily identifiable skills in managing the URTI consultation. Avoiding the prescribing of antibiotics is not necessarily a simple and straightforward matter. Since patients apparently want antibiotics less than anticipated, eliciting expectations might be a way of reducing prescribing and broadening the approach to meeting patient needs. Whether doctors can adjust their routinized consulting patterns in the time-limited context of general practice remains an open question.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2001

Antibiotics and shared decision-making in primary care.

Antibiotics are often prescribed to patients with respiratory tract infections who are unlikely to benefit. Models of physician-patient interaction may help understanding of this problem and inform the design of communication skills interventions to enhance appropriate prescribing. The 'paternalistic model' of the consultation remains common in the setting of acute respiratory tract infections. However, the four assumptions that could support this model are not valid for most of these patients, because: best treatment is controversial; management is inconsistent; physicians are not in the best position to evaluate trade-offs between management options without understanding patients' perspectives; and many pressures (apart from patients' agendas) intrude into the consultation. One alternative is the 'informed model' of consulting, but this does not take society's interests into account. The 'shared decision-making model', however, provides a framework for addressing both clinicians' and patients' agendas, and could guide the development and evaluation of specific consultation strategies to promote more appropriate use of antibiotics in primary care.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2001

Benchmarking using simulated clinical scenarios: a feasibility project.

'Benchmarking' clinical practice and integrating such data with national guidelines offers a way of establishing standards for use in clinical governance. We report on a feasibility project for benchmarking clinical practice in one topic area (otitis media) using simulated clinical scenarios. Consistency and variations in clinical management were identified for different scenarios. Participants perceived the process likely to reflect actual practice and effect change in clinical management.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain any differences between care from nurse practitioners and that from general practitioners for patients seeking "same day" consultations in primary care. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with patients allocated by one of two randomisation schemes (by day or within day). SETTING: 10 general practices in south Wales and south west England. SUBJECTS: 1368 patients requesting same day consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction, resolution of symptoms and concerns, care provided (prescriptions, investigations, referrals, recall, and length of consultation), information provided to patients, and patients' intentions for seeking care in the future. RESULTS: Generally patients consulting nurse practitioners were significantly more satisfied with their care, although for adults this difference was not observed in all practices. For children, the mean difference between general and nurse practitioner in percentage satisfaction score was -4.8 (95% confidence interval -6.8 to -2.8), and for adults the differences ranged from -8.8 (-13.6 to -3.9) to 3.8 (-3.3 to 10.8) across the practices. Resolution of symptoms and concerns did not differ between the two groups (odds ratio 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.8) for symptoms and 1.03 (0.8 to 1.4) for concerns). The number of prescriptions issued, investigations ordered, referrals to secondary care, and reattendances were similar between the two groups. However, patients managed by nurse practitioners reported receiving significantly more information about their illnesses and, in all but one practice, their consultations were significantly longer. CONCLUSION: This study supports the wider acceptance of the role of nurse practitioners in providing care to patients requesting same day consultations.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients in healthcare decisions makes a potentially significant and enduring difference to healthcare outcomes. One difficulty (among many) is that the 'involvement' of patients in decisions has been left undefined. It is usually conceptualised as 'patient centredness', which is a broad and variably interpreted concept that is difficult to assess using current tools. This paper attempts to gauge general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to patient involvement in decision making and their views about the contextual factors, competences, and stages required to achieve shared decisions within consultations. AIM: To explore and understand what constitutes the appropriate involvement of patients in decision making within consultations, to consider previous theory in this field, and to propose a set of competences (skills) and steps that would enable clinical practitioners (generalists) to undertake 'shared decision making' in their clinical environment. METHOD: Qualitative study using focus group interviews of key informants. RESULTS: Experienced GPs with educational roles have positive attitudes to the involvement of patients in decisions, provided the process matches the role individuals wish to play. They perceive some clinical problems as being more suited to a cooperative approach to decision making and conceptualised the existence of professional equipoise towards the existence of legitimate treatment options as an important facilitative factor. A sequence of skills was proposed as follows: 1) implicit or explicit involvement of patients in the decision-making process; 2) explore ideas, fears, and expectations of the problem and possible treatments; 3) portrayal of equipoise and options; 4) identify preferred data format and provide tailor-made information; 5) checking process: understanding of information and reactions (e.g. ideas, fears, and expectations of possible options); 6) acceptance of process and decision making role preference; 7) make, discuss or defer decisions; 8) arrange follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These clinicians viewed involvement as an implicit ethos that should permeate medical practice, provided that clinicians respect and remain alert to patients' individual preferred roles in decision making. The interpersonal skills and the information requirements needed to successfully share decisions are major challenges to the clinical consultation process in medical practice. The benefits of patient involvement and the skills required to achieve this approach need to be given much higher priority at all levels: at policy, education, and within further professional development strategies.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1999

Multi-disciplinary research can be more than parallel-disciplinary research: the case of GPs' use of magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to show how in multi-disciplinary research data collected to meet the needs of one discipline can provide information of value to another. METHODS: Using the critical incident technique, 25 GPs were interviewed about recent scans requested for patients with knee and lumbar spine complaints. Transcripts of the interviews were scrutinized from both a medical and an economic perspective. RESULTS: Five key economic issues where further research is needed were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The total value of the information provided by multi-disciplinary research may exceed the sum of the information collected to meet the requirements of the individual disciplines.

Cooperative Behavior↗
PubMed1999

In-house referral: a primary care alternative to immediate secondary care referral?

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: To describe whether in-house referral is practical and acceptable to patients, and the health outcomes for patients. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation.

The second half of the consultation is where decisions are made and future management agreed. We argue that this part of the clinical interaction has been 'neglected' during a time when communication skill development has been focused on uncovering and matching agendas. There are many factors, such as the increasing access to information and the emphasis on patient autonomy, which have led to the need to give more attention to both the skills and the information required to appropriately involve patients in the decision-making process. This analysis, based on a literature review, considers the concept of 'shared decision-making' and asks whether this approach is practical in the primary care setting. This study, and our ongoing research programme, indicates that future developments in this area depend on increasing the time available within consultations, require improved ways of communicating risk to patients, and an acquisition of new communication skills.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1999

The patient-centredness of consultations and outcome in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is general support for general practitioners (GPs) using patient-centred styles. However, there is limited British evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients from such styles. AIM: To explore whether, for patients presenting for new episodes of care, the GP's consulting style, specifically the patient-centredness of the consultation, is related to five generic outcomes. METHOD: General practitioners in South Wales were recruited, and one surgery consulting session was audiotape recorded for each participating clinician. Questionnaires were given to consenting patients before their consultations, immediately afterwards, and, by post, at two weeks to measure the following outcomes: doctor-patient agreement (on the nature of the problem and management), patient satisfaction, resolution of symptoms, resolution of concerns, and functional health status. From the patients consulting for a new episode of care and completing all three questionnaires, one patient was selected at random for each GP and the audiotape of their consultation rated for patient-centredness. Statistical analysis employed correlation coefficients and t-tests, followed by multiple regression and logistic regression to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: In total, 143 patients consulting 143 GPs were studied. The patient-centred score was positively and statistically significantly associated with patient satisfaction (Pearson correlation = 0.28; P = 0.002). No other associations were found with the other outcomes measured. CONCLUSION: The study presents evidence that patient-centred styles of consulting produce benefits in terms of increased patient satisfaction for patients consulting for new episodes of care in Britain.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

In-house referral: changing general practitioners' roles in the referral of patients to secondary care.

Innovative approaches to patient management are needed to ensure that only those patients who would benefit most are referred from primary to secondary care. This report describes an exploratory study in which general practitioners adopted the role of reviewing the management of patients who would otherwise be referred to hospital. Patients in eight general practices in South Wales were referred In-house by general practitioners to a colleague in the practice who reviewed the need for hospital care. Qualitative data from interviews and questionnaires is presented. In-house referral appears to be acceptable, practical and of value to both general practitioners and patients.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1998

An exploration of GPs' use of MRI: a critical incident study.

BACKGROUND: Direct access to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is becoming available to GPs in the UK, offering major benefits for the improved diagnosis and management of certain clinical conditions. Variations in usage of this service may be large, and effective locally produced guidelines are not currently available. The Department of General Practice is conducting a research programme to develop and evaluate methods to optimize MRI use by GPs. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the current use of MRI by GPs in South Glamorgan; to summarize their reasons for requesting MRI; and to produce criteria to assess the appropriateness of magnetic resonance (MR) scan requests. METHODS: Using the critical incident technique, 25 GPs were interviewed about recent scans requested for patients with knee and lumbar spine complaints. A local panel of primary and secondary care doctors was convened to develop criteria for assessing MR scan requests. RESULTS: Sixty-two scan requests were discussed. Doctors' reasons for requesting MR scans were identified and classified. Reasons for requests included personal, contextual and biomedical variables. Fifteen patients (24%) were managed in primary care following MRI when otherwise they would have been referred. When referrals were made, GPs felt able to reinforce the request and occasionally to direct the patient somewhere more appropriate. The panel reviewed the interview data to produce objective criteria to assess scan requests. The criteria reflect the relative importance of non-biomedical variables in the decision to request MRI. CONCLUSION: The study identified those reasons which are important to GPs when requesting MR scans and the impact of this new technology upon patient management. Interview data have been used to inform locally developed consensus criteria, which will be made available as practice guidelines as the research programme progresses.

Aged↗