General practitioners' attitudes towards patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with poor glycaemic control can represent a challenge from the perspective of the general practitioner (GP). Apart from patient-sided factors, the understanding of GPs' attitudes may provide ideas for improved management in these patients. The aim of this study is to reveal attitudes of GPs towards T2DM patients with poor metabolic control. METHODS: Qualitative research in German general practice; 20 GPs, randomly chosen from participants of a larger study; in-depth narrative interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed; inductive coding and categorisation in a multi-professional team; abstraction of major themes in terms of attitudinal responses. RESULTS: 1) Orientation on laboratory parameters: GPs see it as their medical responsibility to achieve targets, which instil a sense of security. 2) Resignation: GPs believe their efforts are in vain and see their role as being undermined. 3) Devaluation of the patient: GPs blame the "non-compliance" of the patients and experience care as a series of conflicts. 4) Fixed role structure: The expert GP on the one hand, the ignorant patient on the other. 5) Solidarity with the patient: GPs appreciate a doctor-patient relationship in terms of partnership. CONCLUSIONS: The conflict GPs experience between their sense of duty and feelings of futility may lead to perceptions such as personal defeat and insecurity. GPs (and patients) may benefit from adjusting the patient-doctor relationship with regard to shared definitions of realistic and authentic goals.

From hypertension control to global cardiovascular risk management: an educational intervention in a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines on hypertension management recommend adjusting therapeutic efforts in accordance with global cardiovascular risk (CVR) rather than by blood pressure levels alone. However, this paradigm change has not yet arrived in German General Practice. We have evaluated the effect of an educational outreach visit with general practitioners (GPs), encouraging them to consider CVR in treatment decisions for patients with hypertension. METHODS: Prospective cluster-randomised trial comprising 3443 patients with known hypertension treated by 87 GPs. Practices were randomly assigned to complex (A) or simple (B) intervention. Both groups received a guideline by mail; group A also received complex peer intervention promoting the concept of global CVR. Clinical data were collected at baseline and 6-9 months after intervention. Main outcome was improvement of calculated CVR in the predefined subpopulation of patients with a high CVR (10-year mortality ≥5%), but no manifest cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Adjusted for baseline the follow-up CVR were 13.1% (95% CI 12.6%-13.6%) (A) and 12.6% (95% CI 12.2%-13.1%) (B) with a group difference (A vs. B) of 0.5% (-0.2%-1.1%), p = 0.179. The group difference was -0.05% in patients of GPs familiar with global CVR and 1.1% in patients of GPs not familiar with with global CVR. However, this effect modification was not significant (p = 0.165). Pooled over groups, the absolute CVR reduction from baseline was 1.0%, p < 0.001. The ICC was 0.026 (p = 0.002). Hypertension control (BP <140/90 mmHg) improved in the same subpopulation from 38.1 to 45.9% in the complex intervention group, and from 35.6 to 46.5% in the simple intervention group, with adjusted follow-up control rates of 46.7% (95% CI 40.4%-53.1%) (A) and 46.9% (95% CI 40.3%-53.5% (B) and an adjusted odds ratio (A vs B) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.68-1.45), p = 0.966. CONCLUSIONS: Our complex educational intervention, including a clinical outreach visit, had no significant effect on CVR of patients with known hypertension at high risk compared to a simple postal intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN44478543 .

Management of low back pain in general practice - is it of acceptable quality: an observational study among 25 general practices in South Tyrol (Italy).

BACKGROUND: There are several guidelines dealing with the management of low back pain (LBP), but only few studies on the quality of care provided within General Practices as judged against those guidelines.The objective of this study is to analyse the management of LBP in Italian General Practice and compare it with guideline recommendations. METHODS: In this observational study, all patients visiting their General Practitioners (GPs) for treatment of LBP within a 8-week period were monitored for at least four weeks with regard to symptoms and diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Management of LBP was judged by pre-defined quality indicators based on guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 114 eligible GPs participated in the study, representing a total of 43,012 registered patients. Of the 475 patients complaining of LBP and monitored for four weeks, 55.8% were diagnosed as having acute lumbar pain, 13.5% chronic lumbar pain, 17.1% acute sciatica, and 12.6% chronic sciatica; 76.0% underwent no technical investigations, 21.7% underwent x-rays, 5.5% MRI and 4% CT scans; 20.4% were referred to secondary care; 93.3% of all patients received some medication. In those receiving a medication, in 88.3% it was an NSAID, in 6.3% Paracetamol, in 10.4% Paracetamol combined with Codeine, and in 9% a muscle relaxants. When physiotherapy was prescribed (17,1%), it was mostly massage. Hardly more than 50% of GPs (partially) followed locally established guidelines, while the remainder seemed not to follow guidelines at all. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals gross deviations of GP management of LBP from current guidelines and points to two different types of deviators: those who partially follow guidelines, and those who do not follow them at all. Further research should evaluate whether these two types of deviation are best addressed by different foci of education, i.e. on knowledge versus attitudes, respectively.

HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in the western world. Despite a widespread implementation of integrated care programs there are still patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Shared goal setting within the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) may increase patient's compliance and adherence to treatment regimen. In our secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial, we investigated if patients with shared vs. non-shared HbA1c treatment goal, achieve their glycemic goals. METHODS: In a German primary care setting, we collected data before intervention at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients with T2DM with an HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment and complete data at baseline and after 24 months were eligible for the presented analyses. Using a generalized estimating equation analysis, we analysed the association between the achievement of HbA1c goals at 24 months based on their shared vs. non-shared status, age, sex, education, partner status, controlled for baseline HbA1c and insulin therapy. RESULTS: From N = 833 recruited patients at baseline, n = 547 (65.7%) from 105 General Practitioners (GPs) were analysed. 53.4% patients were male, 33.1% without a partner, 64.4% had a low educational level, mean age was 64.6 (SD 10.6), 60.7% took insulin at baseline, mean baseline HbA1c was 9.1 (SD 1.0). For 287 patients (52.5%), the GPs reported to use HbA1c as a shared goal, for 260 patients (47.5%) as a non-shared goal. 235 patients (43.0%) reached the HbA1c goal after two years, 312 patients (57.0%) missed it. Multivariable analysis shows that shared vs. non-shared HbA1c goal setting, age, sex, and education are not associated with the achievement of the HbA1c goal. However, patients living without a partner show a higher risk of missing the goal (p = .003; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.25-2.86). CONCLUSIONS: Shared goal setting with T2DM patients targeting on HbA1c-levels had no significant impact on goal achievement. It may be assumed, that shared goal setting on patient-related clinical outcomes within the process of SDM has not been fully captured yet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.

Antihypertensive treatment and risk of dementia: a retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular risk factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of vascular dementia, as well as in Alzheimer disease. The effect of antihypertensive medication on risk of dementia is unclear. The aim was to investigate the association between antihypertensive prescriptions and incident dementia, using a primary care database. METHODS: The analysis was based on 575 general and internal practices in Germany (10/2003 - 09/2008) (Disease analyzer database). Antihypertensive medication (ATC codes) during 3 years before newly diagnosed dementia (ICD codes or specific medication) in 1,297 patients was compared to 1,297 controls without dementia after matching for age (mean age: 80.6 ± 8.6 y), sex (females: 62%) and date of diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: Betablocker prescriptions (≥ 1 per year over 3 y) showed a significant inverse association with newly diagnosed dementia (Odds ratio, OR: 0.79 95% CI 0.61 - 0.99) after adjusting for demographic covariates, health care use, and cardiovascular and neurological comorbidity. In the fully adjusted model, ACE inhibitors also tended to be inversely associated with incident dementia, but failed statistical significance (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.65 - 1.08). Calcium channel blockers were positively related to cognitive impairment only in the crude analysis. The other drug groups were not significantly related to dementia (diuretics OR: 0.89; 0.67 - 1.19; angiotensin- 1-inhibitors OR: 1.04; 0.66 - 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: This practice-based case-control study indicated a possible protective effect of some antihypertensive agents (betablockers, ACE-inhibitors) on the development of dementia. Randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this finding.

Fluoroquinolones to treat uncomplicated acute cough in primary care: predictors for unjustified prescribing of antibiotics.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to ensure more accurate prescribing of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections, inappropriate selection of antibiotic treatment remains a big issue. We tried to ascertain which factors best predict the nature of fluoroquinolone prescribing for acute cough in primary care. METHODS: Random effects logistic regression models were applied to the baseline prescription data taken from a cluster-randomized controlled trial based on 104 general practitioners (GPs) and 2745 patients. RESULTS: Significant predictors for the prescription of fluoroquinolones from both patient and GP data were identified. Predictors from a patient's perspective were the severity of illness {odds ratio (OR) 3.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.45-5.19] P < 0.001}, the duration of illness before seeing the GP [OR 1.09 (95% CI 1.04-1.14) P < 0.020] and the individual patient's age [OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.00-1.01) P < 0.015]. Predictors from the GP's perspective were extent/lack of specific vocational training [OR 3.10 (95% CI 1.54-6.22) P < 0.001], status as a general internist [OR 2.00 (95% CI 1.10-3.70) P < 0.002], the physician's overall antibiotic prescription rate for acute cough [OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04) P < 0.001], the duration of illness before contact with patient [OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.69-0.95) P < 0.010] and the severity of illness [OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.12-0.63) P < 0.002]. DISCUSSION: Whether a fluoroquinolone is prescribed by a GP seems to be determined not only by the patient's characteristics but also by the GP's vocational training and overall antibiotic prescribing rate. As the prescription of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of acute coughing can rarely be justified, such prescriptions may serve as a quality indicator for antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

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.

Apart from nihilism and stigma: what influences general practitioners' accuracy in identifying incident dementia?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of the General Practitioner's (GP) judgment in the recognition of incident dementia cases and to explore factors associated with recognition. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study, two follow-up assessments (FU 1 and FU 2) within 3 years after baseline. SETTING: One hundred thirty-eight general practice surgeries in the six study centers of a prospective German study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were between 75 and 89 years of age at baseline and were recruited from the GPs' patient lists. In FU 1, 2,402 patients and in FU 2, 2,177 patients were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS: GPs' judgments on their patients' cognitive status as index test; at-home patient interviews and tests, consensus diagnosis as reference; validity of the GP judgment; associations between patient factors and GPs' dementia recognition. RESULTS: One hundred eleven incident dementia cases with complete data were identified in FU 1 and FU 2. Overall sensitivity of the GP judgment was 51.4%, specificity 95.9%, positive predictive value 23.6%, and negative predictive value 98.8%. GPs missed dementia more frequently in patients living alone. GPs overrated the presence of dementia more frequently in patients with problems in mobility or hearing, in patients with memory complaints, and in patients with a GP-documented depression. CONCLUSION: GPs miss nearly half of incident dementia cases. They should be alert not to miss dementia in patients living alone. Without seeking additional information, a positive GP judgment seems not sufficient for case finding. GPs should be aware of their tendency to overestimate dementia in depressed and frail patients.

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.

Sputum colour for diagnosis of a bacterial infection in patients with acute cough.

OBJECTIVE: Sputum colour plays an important role in the disease concepts for acute cough, both in the patients' and the doctors' view. However, it is unclear whether the sputum colour can be used for diagnosis of a bacterial infection. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A total of 42 GP practices in Dusseldorf, Germany. SUBJECTS: Sputum samples obtained from 241 patients suffering from an episode of acute cough seeing their doctor within a routine consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relation of sputum colour and microbiological proof of bacterial infection defined as positive culture and at least a moderate number of leucocytes per low magnification field. RESULTS: In 28 samples (12%) a bacterial infection was proven. Yellowish or greenish colour of the sputum sample and bacterial infection showed a significant correlation (p = 0.014, Fisher's exact test). The sensitivity of yellowish or greenish sputum used as a test for a bacterial infection was 0.79 (95% CI 0.63-0.94); the specificity was 0.46 (95% CI 0.038-0.53). The positive likelihood-ratio (+LR) was 1.46 (95% CI 1.17-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: The sputum colour of patients with acute cough and no underlying chronic lung disease does not imply therapeutic consequences such as prescription of antibiotics.

Which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are perceived as 'difficult' by general practitioners?

AIMS: To find factors that are associated with a general practitioner's (GP's) subjective impression of a patient being 'difficult' within a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of GP patients with T2DM. GP questionnaire on clinical data and GPs' subjective ratings of patient attributes (including 'patient difficulty'). Patient questionnaire on sociodemographics and illness perceptions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses, adjusted for cluster-effect of GP practice. RESULTS: Data from 314 patients from 49 GPs could be analysed. Independent associations with higher GP-rated difficulty were found for (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): male patients from male GPs (1.27; 1.06-1.53), unmarried men (1.25; 1.04-1.51), men with non-German nationality (1.80; 1.24-2.61), patients perceiving more problems with diabetes (1.17; 1.04-1.30), patients with higher BMI (1.01; 1.00-1.02) and HbA1c values (1.06; 1.02-1.10), patients being perceived by the GP as less adherent (1.34; 1.22-1.46) and less health-literate (1.19; 1.04-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of patients' gender and illness perception yield new insights into GP-perceived complexity of care. Culturally and gender-sensitive communication techniques for adapting health care goals to patients' problems (rather than norm values) may alleviate GPs' work.

The value of the GP's clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Clinical judgement is intrinsic to diagnostic strategies in general practice; however, empirical evidence for its validity is sparse. AIM: To ascertain whether a GP's global clinical judgement of future cognitive status has an added value for predicting a patient's likelihood of experiencing dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in German general practice that took place from January 2003 to October 2016. METHOD: Patients without baseline dementia were assessed with neuropsychological interviews over 12 years; 138 GPs rated the future cognitive decline of their participating patients. Associations of baseline predictors with follow-up incident dementia were analysed with mixed-effects logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 3201 patients were analysed over the study period (mean age = 79.6 years, 65.3% females, 6.7% incident dementia in 3 years, 22.1% incident dementia in 12 years). Descriptive analyses and comparison with other cohorts identified the participants as having frequent and long-lasting doctor-patient relationships and being well known to their GPs. The GP baseline rating of future cognitive decline had significant value for 3-year dementia prediction, independent of cognitive test scores and patient's memory complaints (GP ratings of very mild (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] = 1.28 to 3.04); mild (OR 3.00, 95% CI = 1.90 to 4.76); and moderate/severe decline (OR 5.66, 95% CI = 3.29 to 9.73)). GPs' baseline judgements were significantly associated with patients' 12-year dementia-free survival rates (Mantel-Cox log rank test P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In this sample of patients in familiar doctor-patient relationships, the GP's clinical judgement holds additional value for predicting dementia, complementing test performance and patients' self-reports. Existing and emerging primary care-based dementia risk models should consider the GP's judgement as one predictor. Results underline the importance of the GP-patient relationship.

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.

CRISTOPH - a cluster-randomised intervention study to optimise the treatment of patients with hypertension in General Practice.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for the management of hypertension focus on treating patients according to their global cardiovascular risk (CVR), rather than strictly keeping blood pressure, or other risk factors, below set limit values. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of a simple versus a complex educational intervention implementing this new concept among General Practitioners (GPs). METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal cluster-randomised intervention trial with 94 German GPs consecutively enroling 40 patients each with known hypertension. All GPs then received a written manual specifically developed to transfer the global concept of CVR into daily General Practice. After cluster-randomisation, half of the GPs additionally received a clinical outreach visit, with a trained peer discussing with them the concept of global CVR referring to example study patients from the respective GP. Main outcome measure is the improvement of calculated CVR six months after intervention in the subgroup of patients with high CVR (but no history of cardiovascular disease), defined as 10-year-mortality > or = 5% employing the European SCORE formula. Secondary outcome measures include the intervention's effect on single risk factors, and on prescription rates of drugs targeting CVR. All outcome measures are separately studied in the three subgroups of patients with 1. high CVR (defined as above), 2. low CVR (SCORE < 5%), and 3. a history of cardiovascular disease. The influence of age, sex, social status, and the perceived quality of the respective doctor-patient-relation on the effects will be examined. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, no other published intervention study has yet evaluated the impact of educating GPs with the goal to treat patients with hypertension according to their global cardiovascular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN44478543.

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.

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.

[The development of a dementia knowledge test for general practitioners]. / Die Entwicklung eines Wissenstests für Hausärzte zum Thema Demenz.

There is no test available to measure German GPs' knowledge of dementia. Existing English questionnaires cannot be transferred to the German setting and do not focus on the GPs' specific problems and tasks. The management of dementia patients and their relatives both involves psychiatric and GP expertise. Therefore, we asked psychiatrists with a specialty in geriatric psychiatry and experienced GPs to assess 59 multiple-choice questions. The concordance of responses in each expert group and for each question, their ratings of relevance for the GPs' situation on a sixtier scale and their comments on each question served as the basis for the selection of the final 37 items concerning 11 dementia subjects. After pilot testing has been completed, this set of questions will be sent to GPs in three German regions in an attempt to get a general idea of German GPs' knowledge of dementia and to analyze the psychometric properties of the test.

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.