Patient-oriented intervention in addition to centrally organised checkups improves diabetic patient outcome in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Logistic support to general practitioners improves the care processes for patients with diabetes but is not sufficient to meet all criteria. AIM: To introduce patient-oriented interventions by a practice nurse in general practices which already use logistic support to improve the care processes for patients with diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: A controlled before-after study with delayed intervention in the control group. SETTING: 51 practices (n = 23 for the intervention and n = 28 for the control group) in the south of The Netherlands and 900 of their patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data were collected on the results of the checkups (fasting blood glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C), cholesterol, cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio, triglycerides, creatinine, blood pressure, fundus photo, foot exam and body mass index), smoking status, physical activity and medication use. The effect of the patient-oriented intervention was analysed in a mixed model with repeated measurement covariance structure. RESULTS: The HbA1C improved in the intervention group (from 7.3 to 7.1), while that of the control group deteriorated (from 7.2 to 7.3). The percentage of patients with an HbA1C >or=8.5 was halved after the intervention (from 13 to 6). Patients in the intervention group started to exercise more besides their daily activities compared with the control group. The need for medication increased more in the control group than in the intervention group (more changes to insulin and more defined daily dose (DDD) oral medication). CONCLUSION: Patient-oriented interventions in addition to logistic support have a positive effect on diabetic patient outcomes.

Current clinical guideline definitions of airflow obstruction and COPD overdiagnosis in primary care.

The aim of the present study was to establish the agreement between two recommended definitions of airflow obstruction in symptomatic adults referred for spirometry by their general practitioner, and investigate how rates of airflow obstruction change when pre-bronchodilator instead of post-bronchodilator spirometry is performed. The diagnostic spirometric results of 14,056 adults with respiratory obstruction were analysed. Differences in interpretation between a fixed 0.70 forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) cut-off point and a sex- and age-specific lower limit of normal cut-off point for this ratio were investigated. Of the subjects, 53% were female and 69% were current or ex-smokers. The mean post-bronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC was 0.73 in males and 0.78 in females. The sensitivity of the fixed relative to the lower limit of normal cut-off point definition was 97.9%, with a specificity of 91.2%, positive predictive value of 72.0% and negative predictive value of 99.5%. For the subgroup of current or ex-smokers aged > or =50 yrs, these values were 100, 82.0, 69.2 and 100%, respectively. The proportion of false positive diagnoses using the fixed cut-off point increased with age. The positive predictive value of pre-bronchodilator airflow obstruction was 74.7% among current or ex-smokers aged > or =50 yrs. The current clinical guideline-recommended fixed 0.70 forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity cut-off point leads to substantial overdiagnosis of obstruction in middle-aged and elderly patients in primary care. Using pre-bronchodilator spirometry leads to a high rate of false positive interpretations of obstruction in primary care.

Overtreatment with inhaled corticosteroids and diagnostic problems in primary care patients, an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are widely discussed in the literature. Not much is known about the possible overdiagnosis and consequently the overtreatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Aim. This study investigates how often ICS are prescribed without a proper indication and how big the diagnostic problem is caused by inappropriate prescription and use of ICS. METHODS: All patients referred to a primary care diagnostic centre during 6 months who used ICS without a clear indication were included. Their GPs were questioned about the reasons for prescribing ICS. If still no diagnosis could be assessed, GPs were advised to stop ICS and renew spirometry after a steroid-free period of at least 3 months. After 1 year, the use of ICS was evaluated and the diagnoses were reassessed. RESULTS: Of all referred patients (2271), 1171 used ICS, 505 (30%) without a clear indication. After 1 year, final results showed that 11% of all patients originally using ICS had no indication to use ICS and had successfully ceased using this mediation. For 15%, the reasons for using ICS remained unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Overtreatment with ICS in primary care seems to be considerable, which falsely labels patients as asthmatic and which generates unnecessary costs and possible side effects. The awareness of GPs of the need for proper diagnostic testing before prescribing ICS needs to be improved. Overtreatment with ICS in primary care patients can be diminished by systematically supporting the GP in the diagnostic procedures and decision making.