Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Croat Med J ; 51(6): 493-500, 2010 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21162161

RESUMO

AIM: To determine the prevalence of health problems uncovered by a Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in a Primary Care Setting (STEP), to explore how often STEP uncovered conditions new to general practitioners (GP) and ascertain how often STEP results led GPs to plan further interventions. METHODS: This descriptive, interim analysis was based on the data of 189 elderly patients (median age, 78 years; interquartile range [IQ], 74-81) and their 20 GPs collected in Hannover region, Germany, between June 2008 and April 2009. Study nurses in the practice setting applied the 44-item STEP instrument, based mainly on self-reporting, as well as a standardized patient interview. Subsequently, GPs indicated whether the problems were new to them, and whether they planned further action or health interventions on the basis of the problems identified by STEP. RESULTS: A median of 11 health problems (IQ, 8-14) were uncovered per patient, of which a median of 2 (IQ, 1-4) were new to the GP and interventions were planned for a median of 2 problems (IQ, 0-4). Many of the identified health problems are typical of old age. The following health problems uncovered by STEP were often new to the GPs (percentages differ to numbers due to missing GP ratings): cognitive impairment (33 of 64 affected by this problem, 73%), missing or unknown immunization status (84 of 160, 55%), and recent chest pain (19 of 37, 53%). Alcohol misuse was new in all 4 affected patients (100%) and recent falls were new in 5 of 7 patients (83%). Interventions for affected patients were frequently planned for problems of immunization (for 83 patients of 160 reporting the problem, 57%), current anxiety (4 of 9, 50%), and chest pain (14 of 37, 44%). Moreover, further management was frequently planned for depression (10 of 29, 39%) and cognitive impairment (16 of 64, 38%). CONCLUSION: Using a geriatric assessment in primary care discloses relevant heath problems and treatment needs that GPs may otherwise overlook.


Assuntos
Erros de Diagnóstico/prevenção & controle , Clínicos Gerais/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Planejamento de Assistência ao Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doenças Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Doença Crônica , Intervalos de Confiança , Currículo , Feminino , Nível de Saúde , Indicadores Básicos de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Autorrelato , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
Patient Prefer Adherence ; 9: 811-20, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26124648

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Older patients often experience the burden of multiple health problems. Physicians need to consider them to arrive at a holistic treatment plan. Yet, it has not been systematically investigated as to which personal burdens ensue from certain health conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine older patients' perceived burden of their health problems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study presents a cross-sectional analysis in 74 German general practices; 836 patients, 72 years and older (mean 79±4.4), rated the burden of each health problem disclosed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Patients rated each burden using three components: importance, emotional impact, and impact on daily activities. Cluster analyses were performed to define patterns in the rating of these components of burden. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis, independent factors that predict high and low burden were explored. RESULTS: Patients had a median of eleven health problems and rated the burden of altogether 8,900 health problems. Four clusters provided a good clustering structure. Two clusters describe a high burden, and a further two, a low burden. Patients attributed a high burden to social and psychological health problems (especially being a caregiver: odds ratio [OR] 10.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-24.4), to specific symptoms (eg, claudication: OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.0; pain: OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.1), and physical disabilities. Patients rated a comparatively low burden for most of their medical findings, for cognitive impairment, and lifestyle issues (eg, hypertension: OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.2-0.3). CONCLUSION: The patients experienced a relatively greater burden for physical disabilities, mood, or social issues than for diseases themselves. Physicians should interpret these burdens in the individual context and consider them in their treatment planning.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA