Effectiveness of ear syringing in general practice: a randomised controlled trial and patients' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Ear syringing is a common procedure performed for a variety of symptoms in primary care. Reports of its effectiveness vary considerably and no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed. AIM: To estimate the effect of ear syringing on hearing thresholds and on symptoms leading to ear syringing in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised single-blind controlled trial. Before-and-after self-assessments of symptoms. SETTING: Patients from three general practices in the Bristol area attending twice-weekly clinics dedicated to ear syringing over a 12-week period. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned to have their hearing tested before and after ear syringing, or twice before ear syringing. Changes in hearing threshold were measured by pure tone audiometry (PTA). All patients completed sef-assessment forms of symptoms using Likert scales before, and one week after, ear syringing. RESULTS: Hearing threshold improved by 10 dB or more in 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21% to 47%) of the intervention group and 1.6% of control group (number needed to treat = 3.1, 95% CI = 2.2 to 5.2, P<0.001). The levels of improvement in the intervention group ranged between 15 dB and 36 dB. The symptoms that most commonly improved included hearing on the phone, pain, a feeling of blocked ears, and hearing one-to-one. There was a strong relationship between the change thresholds, as measure using PTA, and self-reports of hearing improvement. Secondary analysis was unable to identify predictors of objectively measured improvement. CONCLUSION: Ear syringing improved hearing threshold in a substantial proportion of patients. An even larger proportion reported an improvement in symptoms. It was not possible to predict which patients would benefit.

Patient initiated outpatient follow up in rheumatoid arthritis: six year randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether direct access to hospital review initiated by patients with rheumatoid arthritis would result in improved clinical and psychological outcome, reduced overall use of healthcare resources, and greater satisfaction with care than seen in patients receiving regular review initiated by a rheumatologist. DESIGN: Two year randomised controlled trial extended to six years. SETTING: Rheumatology outpatient department in teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 209 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis for over two years; 68 (65%) in the direct access group and 52 (50%) in the control group completed the study (P = 0.04). CLINICAL OUTCOME: pain, disease activity, early morning stiffness, inflammatory indices, disability, grip strength, range of movement in joints, and bone erosion. Psychological status: anxiety, depression, helplessness, self efficacy, satisfaction, and confidence in the system. Number of visits to hospital physician and general practitioner for arthritis. RESULTS: Participants were well matched at baseline. After six years there was only one significant difference between the two groups for the 14 clinical outcomes measured (deterioration in range of movement in elbow was less in direct access patients). There were no significant differences between groups for median change in psychological status. Satisfaction and confidence in the system were significantly higher in the direct access group at two, four, and six years: confidence 9.8 v 8.4, 9.4 v 8.0, 8.7 v 6.9; satisfaction 9.3 v 8.3, 9.3 v 7.7, 8.9 v 7.1 (all P < 0.02). Patients in the direct access group had 38% fewer hospital appointments (median 8 v 13, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Over six years, patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated their reviews through direct access were clinically and psychologically at least as well as patients having traditional reviews initiated by a physician. They requested fewer appointments, found direct access more acceptable, and had more than a third fewer medical appointments. This radical responsive management could be tested in other chronic diseases.

General practitioners' knowledge of functional and social factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The care of people with chronic physical disease is an important part of the work of general practitioners (GPs). Knowledge of social and functional factors, and good teamwork with other health and social care professionals, are necessary to provide high quality general practice care. This study investigated functional disability, social situation and the involvement of health and social care professionals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and their GPs' knowledge of these factors. Questionnaires were sent to all patients aged 15-74 with rheumatoid arthritis in two general practices, and similar questionnaires were given to their GPs. Functional disability was assessed using the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), on a scale of 0-3. The GP consultation rate for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the previous year was 6.9 compared to 3.7 for all patients in the practices, and increased with increasing disability. Sixty-five per cent of patients had a moderate (HAQ > 1 but 2) disabiltiy. There was an average difference between patient and GP scores for functional disability on the HAQ of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.62), with GPs scoring lower than patients and the difference increased with increasing disability. Seventy-one per cent of patients had seen a rheumatologist or orthopaedic surgeon in the previous year, but there was little involvement by other members of the primary health care team (PHCT). General practitioners had good levels of knowledge of their patients' employment status and who they lived with, but poor knowledge of most of the welfare benefits they were receiving, and of other health and social care professionals involved. It is concluded that GPs see their patients with rheumatoid arthritis frequently, but are often lacking the knowledge about their patients to provide high quality care. They often only know about aspects of their patients' care in which they are directly involved. Ways are suggested for how this situation could be improved.