Search

Objective: The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyze incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties., Methods: Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample., Results: Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met our inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analyzed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centers to speed up the reporting process., Conclusions: We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years and have received a high number of reports. They were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Developers of future systems may find this overview useful., Competing Interests: The project CIRSforte was financed by the Innovation Fonds (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Grant Number 01VSF16021). B.S.M., D.L., and D.S. received a grant by this Innovation Fonds. The other authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Virtual communities of practice (vCoPs) facilitate online learning via the exchange of experiences and knowledge between interested participants. Compared to other communities, vCoPs need to overcome technological structures and specific barriers. Our objective was to pilot the acceptability and feasibility of a vCoP aimed at improving the attitudes of primary care professionals to the empowerment of patients with chronic conditions., Methods: We used a qualitative approach based on 2 focus groups: one composed of 6 general practitioners and the other of 6 practice nurses. Discussion guidelines on the topics to be investigated were provided to the moderator. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using the ATLAS-ti software., Results: The available operating systems and browsers and the lack of suitable spaces and time were reported as the main difficulties with the vCoP. The vCoP was perceived to be a flexible learning mode that provided up-to-date resources applicable to routine practice and offered a space for the exchange of experiences and approaches., Conclusions: The results from this pilot study show that the vCoP was considered useful for learning how to empower patients. However, while vCoPs have the potential to facilitate learning and as shown create professional awareness regarding patient empowerment, attention needs to be paid to technological and access issues and the time demands on professionals. We collected relevant inputs to improve the features, content and educational methods to be included in further vCoP implementation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016.

Background: Communities of practice are based on the idea that learning involves a group of people exchanging experiences and knowledge. The e-MPODERA project aims to assess the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice aimed at improving primary healthcare professional attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases., Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. We will randomly assign 18 primary-care practices per participating region of Spain (Catalonia, Madrid and Canary Islands) to a virtual community of practice or to usual training. The primary-care practice will be the randomization unit and the primary healthcare professional will be the unit of analysis. We will need a sample of 270 primary healthcare professionals (general practitioners and nurses) and 1382 patients. We will perform randomization after professionals and patients are selected. We will ask the intervention group to participate for 12 months in a virtual community of practice based on a web 2.0 platform. We will measure the primary outcome using the Patient-Provider Orientation Scale questionnaire administered at baseline and after 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be the sociodemographic characteristics of health professionals, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the Patient Activation Measure questionnaire for patient activation and outcomes regarding use of the virtual community of practice. We will calculate a linear mixed-effects regression to estimate the effect of participating in the virtual community of practice., Discussion: This cluster randomized controlled trial will show whether a virtual intervention for primary healthcare professionals improves attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases., Trial Registration: ClicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016. Protocol Version. PI15.01 22 January 2016.

Background: Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial., Methods/design: This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference., Discussion: Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the information needs of primary care physicians in Spain and to describe their information-seeking patterns., Methods: This observational study took place in primary care practices located in Madrid, Spain. Participants were a random stratified sample of 112 primary care physicians. Physicians' consultations were video recorded for 4 hours. Clinical questions arising during the patient visit and the sources of information used within the consultation to answer questions were identified. Physicians with unanswered questions were followed up by telephone 2 weeks later to determine whether their questions had since been answered and the sources of information used. Clinical questions were classified by topic and type of information., Results: A total of 3,511 patient consultations (mean length, 7.8 minutes) were recorded, leading to 635 clinical questions (0.18 questions per consultation). The most frequent questions were related to diagnosis (53%) and treatment (26%). The most frequent generic type of questions was "What is the cause of symptom x?" (20.5%). Physicians searched for answers to 22.8% of the questions (9.6% during consultations). The time taken and the success rate in finding an answer during a consultation and afterward were 2 minutes (100%) and 32 minutes (75%), respectively., Conclusions: Primary care physicians working in settings where consultations are of short duration have time to answer only 1 in 5 of their questions. Better methods are needed to provide answers to questions that arise in office practice in settings where average consultation time is less than 10 minutes.

Objectives: To determine the information needs of primary care physicians by identifying the frequency and type of questions arising during consultation, and by describing the information-search pattern. DESIGN. Observational, descriptive, multi-centre study., Setting: Primary care practices in Madrid, Spain., Participants: Random sample, proportionally stratified by area (urban/rural) and specialty (general practitioner/paediatrician), of 208 primary care physicians out of a total of 1182 physicians; 112 agreed to take part., Interventions: Physicians consultations were video-recorded for four hours. Between patients, they were asked to pose all the clinical questions arising during the patient visit and the sources of information used to answer them. Unresolved questions were followed up by phone 2 weeks later to check if answers had been found and what sources of information had been used. Clinical questions were classified by topic and type., Main Measurements: Number of questions posed and their answers; topic and type of information; information resources used., Results: A total of 3511 patient consultations, leading to 635 clinical questions, were recorded. The most frequent questions were on pharmacology (10%) for general practitioners, and infectious disease (19%) for paediatricians. The most frequent type of question was on the cause/interpretation of a clinical finding (44% for general practitioners and 48% for paediatricians). Answers to 39% of the questions were not sought. A 86% of the answers sought were solved, mainly using the drug compendium (35%) or a text-book (18%)., Conclusions: Primary care physicians tried to resolve less than two-thirds of the questions asked, and mainly did so through readily available printed material. Better methods are needed to provide answers to questions that arise in clinical practice.