Narrative medicine-based intervention in primary care to reduce polypharmacy: results from the cluster-randomised controlled trial MultiCare AGENDA.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if patient-centred communication leads to a reduction of the number of medications taken without reducing health-related quality of life. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 55 primary care practices in Hamburg, Düsseldorf and Rostock, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 604 patients 65 to 84 years of age with at least three chronic conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Within the 12-month intervention, general practitioners (GPs) had three 30 min talks with each of their patients in addition to routine consultations. The first talk aimed at identifying treatment targets and priorities of the patient. During the second talk, the medication taken by the patient was discussed based on a 'brown bag' review of all the medications the patient had at home. The third talk served to discuss goal attainment and future treatment targets. GPs in the control group performed care as usual. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assumed that the number of medications taken by the patient would be reduced by 1.5 substances in the intervention group and that the change in the intervention group's health-related quality of life would not be statistically significantly inferior to the control group. RESULTS: The patients took a mean of 7.0±3.5 medications at baseline and 6.8±3.5 medications at follow-up. There was no difference between treatment and control group in the change of the number of medications taken (0.43; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.93; P=0.094) and no difference in health-related quality of life (0.03; -0.02 to 0.08; P=0.207). The likelihood of receiving a new prescription for analgesics was twice as high in the intervention group compared with the control group (risk ratio, 2.043; P=0.019), but the days spent in hospital were reduced by the intervention (-3.07; -5.25 to -0.89; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Intensifying the doctor-patient dialogue and discussing the patient's agenda and personal needs did not lead to a reduction of medication intake and did not alter health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46272088; Pre-results.

The Prevention and Treatment of Retinal Complications in Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus can cause retino pathy and maculopathy, which can irreversibly damage vision and lead to blindness. The prevalence of retinopathy is 9-16% in patients with type 2 diabetes and 24-27% in patients with type 1 diabetes. 0.2-0.5% of diabetics are blind. METHODS: The National Disease Management Guideline on the prevention and treatment of retinal complications in diabetes was updated according to recommendations developed by seven scientific medical societies and organizations and by patient representatives and then approved in a formal consensus process. These recommendations are based on international guidelines and systematic reviews of the literature. RESULTS: Regular ophthalmological examinations enable the detection of retinopathy in early, better treatable stages. The control intervals should be based on the individual risk profile: 2 years for low-risk patients and 1 year for others, or even shorter depending on the severity of retinopathy. General risk factors for retinopathy include the duration of diabetes, the degree of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and diabetic nephropathy. The general, individually adapted treatment strategies are aimed at improving the risk profile. The most important specifically ophthalmological treatment recommendations are for panretinal laser coagulation in proliferative diabetic retinopathy and, in case of clinically significant diabetic macular edema with foveal involvement, for the intravitreal application of medications (mainly, vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] inhibitors), if an improvement of vision with this treatment is thought to be possible. CONCLUSION: Regular, risk-adapted ophthalmological examinations, with standardized documentation of the findings for communication between ophthalmologists and the patients' treating primary care physicians/diabetologists, is essential for the prevention of diabetic retinal complications, and for their optimal treatment if they are already present.

Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content.

BACKGROUND: From 2010 onward, a new leaflet about mammography screening for breast cancer, more informative than the preceding version, has been sent to women in Germany aged 50 to 69 with the invitation to undergo screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different informational content on the decision whether or not to be screened. METHODS: In a randomized and blinded design, 792 women aged 48 to 49 were sent either the old or the new leaflet. Questionnaires were sent together with the leaflets in order to assess the following: willingness to undergo mammography screening, knowledge, decisional confidence, personal experiences of breast cancer, and demographic data. RESULTS: 370 (46.7%) of the questionnaires were returned, and 353 were evaluable. The two groups did not differ significantly in their willingness to be screened: 81.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.8%-87.2%) versus 88.6% (95% CI 83.9%-91.3%, p = 0.060). A post-hoc analysis showed that women who reported having had personal experience of breast cancer (18.7%) were more willing to be screened if they were given the new leaflet, rather than the old one (interaction p = 0.014). The two groups did not differ in their knowledge about screening (p = 0.260). Women who received the old leaflet reported a higher decisional confidence (p = 0.017). The most commonly mentioned factors affecting the decision were experience of breast cancer in relatives and close acquaintances (26.5% of mentions) and a doctor's recommendation (48.2%). Leaflets (3.6%) and all other factors played only a secondary role. CONCLUSION: The greater or lesser informativeness of the leaflet affected neither the participants' knowledge of mammography screening nor their willingness to undergo it. The leaflet was not seen as an aid to decision-making. The best way to assure an informed decision about screening may be for the patient to discuss the matter personally with a qualified professional.

Effects of different information brochures on women's decision-making regarding mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: In order to give informed consent for mammography screening, women need to be told the relevant facts; however, screening information often remains vague because of the worry that detailed information might deter women from participating in recommended screening programs. Since September 2010, German women aged 50 to 69 invited for mammography screening have received a new, comprehensive information brochure that frankly discusses the potential benefit and harm of mammography screening. In contrast, the brochure that was in use before September 2010 contained little relevant information.The aim of this study is to compare the impact of the two different brochures on the intention of women to undergo mammography screening, and to broaden our understanding of the effect that factual information has on the women's decision-making. METHODS: This is a controlled questionnaire study comparing knowledge, views and hypothetical preferences of women aged 48-49 years after receiving the old versus the new information brochure. German GP's in the region of North Rhine-Westfalia will be asked by mail and telephone to participate in the study. Eligible women will be recruited via their general practitioners (GPs) and randomized to groups A ('new brochure') and B ('old brochure'), with an intended recruitment of 173 participants per group. The study is powered to detect a 15% higher or lower intention to undergo mammography screening in women informed by the new brochure. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to our understanding of the decision-making of women invited to mammography screening. From both ethical and public health perspectives, it is important to know whether frank, factual information leads to a change in the intention of women to participate in a recommended breast cancer screening program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00004271.

[How do general practitioners deal with patients they do not consider to be depressed but who are classified as such according the PHQ-9?]. / Was erzählen Hausärzte über ihre Patienten, bei denen sie eine vorliegende Depression nicht diagnostiziert haben?

OBJECTIVES How GPs describe their patients who they did not identify as suffering from depression but who were classified as such by PHQ-9? What conclusions can be drawn with regard to how depression is dealt with and the illness model in use? METHOD GPs who took part in a screening study were asked in interviews to talk about some of their patients - not being informed that these were those not identified as depressive by them. This study comprises 21 narrative interviews from 18 GPs. Analysis by Framework method by Lewis and Ritchie. RESULTS The low identification rate of depression is not the result of failed recognition of "psychological problems" but of other factors centring on GPs' particular way of working and their concepts about mental illness: making a diagnosis only in a contextual way of interpreting symptoms; using the time passing as a help for diagnosing; emphasis on the impairment rather the diagnosis; considering the therapeutic consequences before making a diagnosis; a tolerance concerning "deviation" respectively wider view on "normality". CONCLUSION Understanding the different ways of conceptionalizing mental illness by psychiatrists and general practitioners is basic for their cooperation.

Are women getting relevant information about mammography screening for an informed consent: a critical appraisal of information brochures used for screening invitation in Germany, Italy, Spain and France.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to find out if information brochures on mammography screening in Germany, Italy, Spain and France contain more information to facilitate informed consent than in similar studies carried out over the last few years in Sweden, Canada, USA and the UK, countries with different medical cultures. METHODS: We generated a list of essential information items on mammography screening for the purpose of informed consent. We mostly used the same items of information as had been used in previous studies and analysed the information brochures of major national initiatives in Germany and France, and three brochures each from regionalized programmes in Italy and Spain. We cross-checked which of our items were covered in the brochures and if correct numbers were given. RESULTS: We found that the information brochures contained only about half of the information items we defined. Six of the eight brochures mentioned the reduction in breast-cancer fatalities. Four of the eight provided information on false positives, and four of the brochures highlighted the side-effects of radiation. The information on side-effects and risks provided by the brochures was generally of poor quality, and none of them referred to over diagnosis. When numbers were given, they were only indicated in terms of relative numbers. CONCLUSION: The information brochures currently being used in Germany, Italy, Spain and France are no better than the brochures analysed some years ago. Our results suggest that the providers of mammography screening programmes continue to conceal information from women that is essential when making an informed decision.

Is COPD a rare disease? Prevalence and identification rates in smokers aged 40 years and over within general practice in Germany.

BACKGROUND: According to literature, COPD rates are high in spite of decreasing rates of main risk factors smoking and air pollution in developed countries. general practice is a good place to survey unbiased prevalence rates. Ten studies done in general practice over the last 20 years found prevalence rates among smokers between 13.1% and 92.1%. OBJECTIVE: Prevalence and detection rates of COPD in smokers in German general practice. METHODS: Twenty-eight of 34 invited and eligible GP surgeries in/around Duesseldorf, Germany, took part in the non-announced 2-day investigation of all smokers (> or =40 years) who visited the surgeries. Lung function test by hand-held spirometer, peak flow, sympton part of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and data on smoking habits were used. GOLD criteria for COPD were employed. GPs had to give their diagnosis not knowing the test results. RESULTS: Of 3157 patients attending the 28 surgeries, 538 were smokers. Four hundred and thirty-seven of these agreed to participate, 5 had to be excluded for medical reasons/unacceptable spirometry. Three hundred and ninety-eight patients have not been previously diagnosed with COPD or asthma. Thirty patients were disgnosed with COPD, making a prevalence of 6.9%, of which 15 patients were already known as having COPD. CONCLUSION: Our result of low prevalence differs strongly from all other studies in general practice. Considering our study design which avoids selection bias found in nearly all other studies (no pre-announcement, no self-selection of patients or GPs, high participation rate and testing all patients), we strongly believe that our findings reflect the current situation of COPD in German general practice.

Geriatric assessment in general practice using a screening instrument: is it worth the effort? Results of a South Tyrol Study.

BACKGROUND: geriatric assessment is a well-established instrument to improve the care of the elderly, but little is known about it in general practice although patients often are known for years. METHODS: we used STEP-assessment, an instrument developed by European General Practitioners (GPs), which identifies only problems that can be improved; 37 questions had to be answered by the patient and 4 tests had to be done by the GP. Additionally in the study, GP and patient had to indicate separately which of the problems were seen as relevant and what both accepted to do for improvement. A year later, participating GPs were asked by a not-announced questionnaire to report on improvements and reasons for failure. RESULTS: of the 220 eligible GPs, 45 enrolled a random sample of 894 patients (average age 77 years). In all 7.8 out of 32 possible problems per patient were found. Of those, 1.4 problems were not known to the GP. More than two-thirds of the 'new problems' are perceived as relevant by GP, patient or by both. GPs assessed medical problems and patients assessed social/psychological problems as more relevant. The length and quality of the relationship with the patient was reflected in the number of new problems, with fewer new problems in those well-known. A year later, GPs had offered treatment for 47% of the newly diagnosed problems, with a success-rate of 81%. CONCLUSION: geriatric screening can detect unidentified problems in general practice. Once detected and dealt with, a high proportion of the undetected problems showed improvement. GPs focussed more on medical, while patients more on psychosocial issues. To increase the outcome of screening, it is necessary to discuss the relevance assessed by the patient.

Responding to serious medical error in general practice--consequences for the GPs involved: analysis of 75 cases from Germany.

OBJECTIVES: GPs' recollections about their 'most serious errors in treatment' and about the consequences for themselves. Does it make a difference, who (else) contributed to the error, or to its discovery or disclosure? METHODS: Anonymous questionnaire study concerning the 'three most serious errors in your career as a GP'. The participating doctors were given an operational definition of 'serious error'. They applied a special recall technique, using patient-induced associations to bring to mind former 'serious errors'. The recall method and the semi-structured 25-item questionnaire used were developed and piloted by the authors. The items were analysed quantitatively and by qualitative content analysis. SETTING: General practices in the North Rhine region in Germany: 32 GPs anonymously reported about 75 'most serious errors'. RESULTS: In more than half of the cases analysed, other people contributed considerably to the GPs' serious errors. Most of the errors were discovered and disclosed to the patient by doctors: either by the GPs themselves, or by colleagues. A lot of GPs suffered loss of reputation and loss of patients. However, the number of patients staying with their GP clearly exceeded the number leaving their GP, depending on who else contributed to the error, who discovered it and who disclosed it to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients still trusted their GP after a serious error, especially if the GP was not the only one who contributed to the error and if the GP played an active role in the discovery and disclosure or the error.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by lipid-lowering treatment in German general practice: results from GPs ignoring guidelines and risk calculators.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines/risk calculators for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have been developed, which could make decisions for or against therapy easier. However, it has been shown for different countries that there is still quite a discrepancy between what is done and what should be done according to guidelines/risk calculators. Usually, in Germany, neither guidelines nor risk calculators are used. On what basis, then, and with what result do German general practitioners decide for or against a treatment? METHODS: 26 GPs agreed to participate in the study. From their surgeries, data from a random sample of 401 patients diagnosed with hyperlipidaemia were taken, of which 290 were eligible for the study on primary prevention. Patient risk factors were taken from their files to analyse their need for treatment using risk calculators for ERCP III (US guideline) and the European guideline. These results were compared with the treatment they received from their GPs. In semi-structured interviews, GPs were asked about their decision-making process (in four randomly chosen patients from each surgery) concerning the chosen treatment. Additionally, GPs were asked about their attitude towards guidelines/risk calculators. RESULTS: 89% of the patients who received treatment would also have received it according to ERCP III. According to European guidelines, only 38% of those receiving treatment need it. Concerning those not receiving treatment, 54% would not receive it according to NCEP III and 89% would not according to the European guideline. In interviews, around 75% of doctors demonstrated that they follow a multifactorial approach and a high-risk strategy. However, about 50% and 70% explicitly stated not using guidelines or risk calculators, respectively, and even among those stating that they used them, the majority were unaware of names/sources. Patient values or wishes as well as the healthcare system influenced their decisions. CONCLUSION: German GPs seem to follow quite effectively a high-risk strategy in primary prevention, usually using a multifactorial approach, even without using risk calculators/guidelines. This kind of personalized care is also reflected in the considered importance of patient wishes and values. It is difficult to judge GPs concerning their quality of care having as a "gold standard" different risk calculators/guidelines that define whether such different populations receive treatment or not.