What Patients Tell Us about Primary Healthcare Evaluation Instruments: Response Formats, Bad Questions and Missing Pieces.

UNLABELLED: Instruments have been developed that measure consumer evaluations of primary healthcare using different approaches, formats and questions to measure similar attributes. In 2004 we concurrently administered six validated instruments to adults and conducted discussion groups to explore how well the instruments allowed patients to express their healthcare experience and to get their feedback about questions and formats. METHOD: We held 13 discussion groups (n=110 participants): nine in metropolitan, rural and remote areas of Quebec; four in metropolitan and rural Nova Scotia. Participants noted critical incidents in their healthcare experience over the previous year, then responded to all six instruments under direct observation and finally participated in guided discussions for 30 to 40 minutes. The instruments were: the Primary Care Assessment Survey; the Primary Care Assessment Tool; the Components of Primary Care Index; the EUROPEP; the Interpersonal Processes of Care Survey; and part of the Veterans Affairs National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey. Two team members analyzed discussion transcripts for content. RESULTS: While respondents appreciated consistency in response options, they preferred options that vary to fit the question. Likert response scales functioned best; agreement scales were least appreciated. Questions that average experience over various providers or over many events diluted the capacity to detect critical negative or positive incidents. Respondents tried to answer all questions but stressed that they were not able to report accurately on elements outside their direct experience or in the provider's world. They liked short questions and instruments, except where these compromise clarity or result in crowded formatting. All the instruments were limited in their capacity to report on the interface with other levels of care. CONCLUSION: Each instrument has strengths and weaknesses and could be marginally improved, but respondents accurately detected their intent and use. Their feedback offers insight for instrument development.

Primary care practices and determinants of optimal anticoagulation management in a collaborative care model.

BACKGROUND: In a collaborative care model (CCM) for managing oral anticoagulant therapy, patients are followed at a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation service and, once stabilized, are transferred to their primary care physician. The objective of this study was to describe physicians' clinical practices and the practice characteristics associated with better international normalized ratio (INR) control in a CCM. METHODS: A telephone questionnaire about their practices was administered to 121 physicians exposed to a CCM. The physicians followed 121 patients for a mean of 14.5 weeks. The percentage of time within the exact INR target range was computed and dichotomized (> or = or < median time within target range). Determinants of better INR control were identified using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The survey revealed that, after discharge from the pharmacist-managed anticoagulation service, patients are followed mainly by physicians and their secretaries. Physicians do not often consult other health professionals. Few report using technological resources to obtain INR results (39.7%), document medical follow-up (6.6%), or detect drug (32.2%) and food (9.9%) interactions. The median percentage of time within the exact INR target range was 84%. Determinants of better INR control include using computerized support to monitor patients (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% CI 1.77-47.4) and detect drug interactions (OR 3.49, 95% CI 1.71-7.10) and consulting specialists (OR 5.92, 95% CI 1.49-32.48). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians are poorly supported by technological and human resources to monitor patients on oral anticoagulant. Even in a CCM, interprofessional collaboration and better technological support may be associated with optimal INR control.

Is long-term pharmacist-managed anticoagulation service efficient? A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Some pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services (PMAS) provide initial follow-up to patients on oral anticoagulant, who are transferred to their physician once they are stabilized. This may be as effective as and less expensive than long-term PMAS follow-up. METHODS: Once PMAS patients were stabilized and ready for discharge, they were randomized to be transferred to their physician or stay with the PMAS. Quality of international normalized ratio (INR) control, incidence of complications, health-related quality of life, use of health care services, and direct incremental cost of PMAS follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight physicians and 250 patients participated. Patients were initially followed at the PMAS for a mean of 11.3 weeks and afterwards were followed by their physician (n = 122) or by the PMAS pharmacists (n = 128) for a mean of 14.9 and 14.5 weeks, respectively. Pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services' and physician's patients were within the exact target range 77.3% and 76.7% of the time (95% CI of the difference -4.9% to 6.0%) and within the extended range 93.0% and 91.6% of the time (95% CI -2.1% to 4.7%), respectively. Pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services patients have seen their family physician less often (95% CI -3.1 to -0.1 visit per year). Number of INR tests, incidence of complications, and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups. The incremental cost of PMAS follow-up was estimated at CAN$123.80 per patient year. CONCLUSION: Once PMAS patients are well stabilized, maintaining a PMAS follow-up or transferring them to their physician is associated with excellent INR control. However, long-term PMAS follow-up may be more expensive.

Long-term prognosis for infants after massive fetomaternal hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fetal, neonatal, and long-term prognosis of massive fetomaternal hemorrhage (20 mL or more). METHODS: This series includes all patients with Kleihauer test values of 40 per 10,000 or higher over an 8-year period at two university hospitals. We examined obstetric, neonatal, and subsequent outcome data for the children. RESULTS: During the study period, 48 patients had massive fetomaternal hemorrhage (crude incidence 1.1 per 1,000; corrected incidence for Rh-negative women 4.6 per 1,000). Six fetal deaths were observed, representing 1.6% of all fetal deaths during the period. Nine newborns (18.7%) were transferred to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and five (10.4%) had transfusions. Fetomaternal hemorrhages of 20 mL/kg or more significantly increased the risk of fetal death, induced preterm delivery, transfer to NICU, and neonatal anemia requiring transfusion. Long-term follow-up was not associated with neurological sequelae (0%, 95% confidence interval 0.0-11.6%). CONCLUSION: When the transfused volume equals or exceeds 20 mL/kg, massive fetomaternal hemorrhage may lead to severe prenatal or neonatal complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

p16(INK4a) immunocytochemical analysis is an independent prognostic factor in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

We investigated the prognostic value of p16(INK4a) immunocytochemistry (ICC) analysis in 126 cases of newly diagnosed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The incidence of negative p16(INK4a) ICC was 38.1% and was more frequent in T-lineage ALL. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were significantly higher in patients with positive p16(INK4a) ICC than in patients with negative ICC (6 years OS, 90% versus 63%, P =.0014; 6 years EFS, 77.8% versus 55%, P =.0033). The p16(INK4a) ICC remained a significant prognostic factor within the subgroup of B-precursor ALL. Multivariate analysis showed that negative p16(INK4a) ICC was an independent prognostic factor for OS (relative risk [RR], 3.38; P =.02) and EFS (RR, 2.49; P =.018). Sequential study showed that p16(INK4a) expression remained stable during first relapse in most patients. These findings indicate that p16(INK4a) ICC is an independent factor of outcome in childhood ALL.