The effect of virtual specialist conferences between endocrinologists and general practitioners about type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: To support the primary care sector in delivering high-quality type 2 diabetes (T2D), literature reviews emphasize the need for implementing models of collaboration that in a simple and effective way facilitate clinical dialogue between general practitioners (GPs) and endocrinologists. The overall aim of the project is to evaluate if virtual specialist conferences between GPs and endocrinologists about patients living with T2D is clinically effective and improves diabetes competences and organization in general practice in comparison to usual practice. METHODS: A prospective, pragmatic, and superiority RCT with two parallel arms of general practices in the Municipality of Aarhus, Denmark. All general practices are invited (n = 100). The intervention runs for 12 months and consists of four virtual conferences between endocrinologists and an individual general practice. Before the first conference, an introductory webinar teaches GPs about how to use an IT-platform to identify and manage T2D patients. The main analysis (month 12) concerns the difference between the intervention and control arm. It is expected that the virtual conferences at the patient level will improve adherence to international recommendations on diabetes medication for T2D patients and improve the risk profile with a reduction in glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure, and cholesterol. The study design allows for identifying a significant difference between the intervention (n = 15) and control group (n = 15) regarding the three primary clinical outcomes with a power of 0.8870-0.9941. At the general practice level, it is expected that general practitioners and practice staff in the intervention group will improve self-reported diabetes competence and organization. The control arm will get the intervention when the primary intervention ends (months 12-24), and the intervention arm transitions to a maintenance phase. DISCUSSION: The potential of virtual conferences is yet to be fully tapped because of methodological limitations. Studies have also not yet systematically evaluated virtual conferences in the context of chronic care using a high-quality research design. Given the nature of this real-life intervention, general practitioners and endocrinologists cannot be blinded to their allocation to either the intervention or comparison arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, United States National Institutes of Health trial ID: NCT05268081. Registered on 4 March 2022.

Facilitators and barriers in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis as described by general practitioners: a Danish study based on focus group interviews.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on facilitators and barriers in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DESIGN: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews, and using latent thematic analysis. SETTING: General practices from Central Region Denmark. SUBJECTS: Eleven GPs participated in three different focus groups. Forty percent were female, the mean age was 53 years (range 37-64), and the mean since medical licensing was 16 years (range 5-23). Sixty percent of the GPs worked in an area served by a university hospital, and 40% were served by a regional hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Themes describing experiences and reflections about facilitators and barriers in diagnosing Rheumatoid Arthritis. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (A) If the patient is not a textbook example, (B) The importance of maintaining the gatekeeper function, (C) Difficulties in referral of patients to the rheumatologist, and (D) Laboratory tests-can they be trusted? Barriers were identified in all themes, but facilitators only in A, C, and D. The overarching theme was Like finding a needle in a haystack. CONCLUSION: The GPs found several barriers for diagnosing RA (symptom awareness, GP's gatekeeper function, suboptimal collaboration with rheumatologists and limitations in laboratory tests). They identified education, more specific tests and better access to rheumatologists as possible facilitators for diagnosing RA. To facilitate earlier referral of suspected RA in general practice and strengthen mutual information and collaboration, future research should focus on these facilitators and barriers.KeypointsEarly diagnosis is essential for the prognosis of RA, and the diagnostic process begins in general practice.Suggested facilitators: training courses in interpretation of laboratory tests and the clinical manifestation of RA, and videos on joint examinations.Suggested barriers: compliance with the gatekeeper function, suboptimal collaboration with rheumatologists, limitations of laboratory tests, and diversity of clinical manifestations.