Development of prescribing indicators related to opioid-related harm in patients with chronic pain in primary care-a modified e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid use is associated with dependency, addiction, and serious adverse events. Although a framework to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing exists, there is no consensus on prescribing indicators for preventable opioid-related problems in patients with chronic pain in primary care in the UK. This study aimed to identify opioid prescription scenarios for developing indicators for prescribing opioids to patients with chronic pain in primary care. METHODS: Scenarios of opioid prescribing indicators were identified from a literature review, guidelines, and government reports. Twenty-one indicators were identified and presented in various opioid scenarios concerning opioid-related harm and adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions in certain disease conditions. After receiving ethics approval, two rounds of electronic Delphi panel technique surveys were conducted with 24 expert panellists from the UK (clinicians, pharmacists, and independent prescribers) from August 2020 to February 2021. Each indicator was rated on a 1-9 scale from inappropriate to appropriate. The score's median, 30th and 70th percentiles, and disagreement index were calculated. RESULTS: The panel unanimously agreed that 15 out of the 21 opioid prescribing scenarios were inappropriate, primarily due to their potential for causing harm to patients. This consensus was reflected in the low appropriateness scores (median ranging from 1 to 3). There were no scenarios with a high consensus that prescribing was appropriate. The indicators were considered inappropriate due to drug-disease interactions (n = 8), drug-drug interactions (n = 2), adverse effects (n = 3), and prescribed dose and duration (n = 2). Examples included prescribing opioids during pregnancy, concurrently with benzodiazepines, long-term without a laxative prescription and prescribing > 120-mg morphine milligram equivalent per day or long-term duration over 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The high agreement on opioid prescribing indicators indicates that these potentially hazardous consequences are relevant and concerning to healthcare practitioners. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of these indicators within primary care settings. This research will provide valuable insights and evidence to support opioid prescribing and deprescribing strategies. Moreover, the findings will be crucial in informing primary care practitioners and shaping quality outcome frameworks and other initiatives to enhance the safety and quality of care in primary care settings.

Implementation of national guidance for self-harm among general practice nurses: a qualitative exploration using the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) and the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Patients who self-harm may consult with primary care nurses, who have a safeguarding responsibility to recognise and respond to self-harm. However, the responses of nursing staff to self-harm are poorly understood, and opportunities to identify self-harm and signpost towards treatment may be missed. It is unclear how to support nursing staff to implement national guidelines. AIMS: Among primary care nursing staff to: [1] Examine reported barriers and enablers to nurses' use of, and adherence to, national guidance for self-harm; and [2] Recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of the NICE guidelines. METHODS: Twelve telephone interviews partly structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) were conducted with primary care nurses in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used as an analytical framework, while the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify exemplar behaviour change techniques and intervention functions. RESULTS: Nursing staff identified a need to learn more about risk factors (knowledge), and strategies to initiate sensitive conversations about self-harm (cognitive and interpersonal skills) to support their professional competencies (professional role and identity). Prompts may support recall of the guidance and support a patient centred approach to self-harm within practices (memory, attention, and decision making). GPs, and other practice nurses offer guidance and support (social influences), which helps nurses to navigate referrals and restricted appointment lengths (environmental context and influences). CONCLUSIONS: Two converging sets of themes relating to information delivery and resource availability need to be targeted. Nine groups of behaviour change techniques, and five intervention functions offer candidate solutions for future intervention design. Key targets for change include practical training to redress conversational skill gaps about self-harm, the integration of national guidance with local resources and practice-level protocols to support decision-making, and creating opportunities for team-based mentoring.

Disability and the Goods of Life.

The so-called Disability Paradox arises from the apparent tension between the popular view that disability leads to low well-being and the relatively high life-satisfaction reports of disabled people. Our aim in this essay is to make some progress toward dissolving this alleged paradox by exploring the relationship between disability and various "goods of life"-that is, components of a life that typically make a person's life go better for them. We focus on four widely recognized goods of life (happiness, rewarding relationships, knowledge, achievement) and four common types of disability (sensory, mobility, intellectual, and social) and systematically examine the extent to which the four disability types are in principle compatible with obtaining the four goods of life. Our findings suggest that there is a high degree of compatibility. This undermines the widespread view that disabilities, by their very nature, substantially limit a person's ability to access the goods of life, and it provides some guidance on how to dissolve the Disability Paradox.

Well-Being and the Good Death.

The philosophical literature on well-being and the good life contains very little explicit discussion of what makes for a better or worse death. The purpose of this essay is to highlight some commonly held views about the good death and investigate whether these views are recognized by the leading theories of well-being. While the most widely discussed theories do have implications about what constitutes a good death, they seem unable to fully accommodate these popular good death views. I offer two partial explanations for why these views have been neglected in discussions of well-being and make two corresponding recommendations for future work in the philosophy of well-being.

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS: We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is growing internationally, but little is known about black and minority ethnic (BME) involvement and the factors influencing their involvement in health and social care research. OBJECTIVES: To characterize and critique the empirical literature on BME-PPI involvement in health and social care research. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic searches of six electronic bibliographic databases were undertaken, utilizing both MeSH and free-text terms to identify international empirical literature published between 1990 and 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All study designs that report primary data that involved BME groups in health or social care research. Screening was conducted by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently. Data extraction focused on the level(s) of PPI involvement and where PPI activity occurred in the research cycle. Studies were quality-assessed using the guidelines for measuring the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Data were analysed using a narrative approach. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included with the majority undertaken in the USA focusing on African Americans and indigenous populations. Involvement most commonly occurred during the research design phase and least in data analysis and interpretation. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review investigating BME involvement in health and social care research internationally. While there is a widespread support for BME involvement, this is limited to particular phases of the research and particular ethnic subgroups. There is a need to understand factors that influence BME involvement in all parts of the research cycle.

The Complicated Relationship of Disability and Well-Being.

It is widely assumed that disability is typically a bad thing for those who are disabled. Our purpose in this essay is to critique this view and defend a more nuanced picture of the relationship between disability and well-being. We first examine four interpretations of the above view and argue that it is false on each interpretation. We then ask whether disability is thereby a neutral trait. Our view is that most disabilities are neutral in one sense, though we cannot make simple generalizations about disability's relationship to well-being in other important senses. After defending this view, we discuss its practical implications for selective abortion for disability, nondisabled people's interactions with disabled people, and the use of QALYs in health policy.

A Broader Understanding of Moral Distress.

On the traditional view, moral distress arises only in cases where an individual believes she knows the morally right thing to do but fails to perform that action due to various constraints. We seek to motivate a broader understanding of moral distress. We begin by presenting six types of distress that fall outside the bounds of the traditional definition and explaining why they should be recognized as forms of moral distress. We then propose and defend a new and more expansive definition of moral distress and examine how it can enable the development of a taxonomy of moral distress.

The individual contribution and relative importance of self-management and quality of care on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative importance of selfmanagement (SM) and quality of care (QoC) inpredicting glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study was conducted in 204 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Self-management and quality of care were measured at baseline. HbA1c was measured at baseline and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: None of the measures of self-management were significantly associated with HbA1c.Treatment intensification (TI) (a proxy for quality of care) resulted in lower HbA1c at follow-up. Other variables were associated with HbA1c at follow-up: HbA1c at baseline, age, diabetes duration, and combination of oral glucose-lowering medications. An exploratory analysis showed that patients who did not receive treatment intensification but performed more self-management behaviours had lower HbA1c levels at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment intensification might be more important for glycaemic control than self-management but the interaction between treatment intensification and self-management needs further research.

Referral and management options for patients with chronic kidney disease: perspectives of patients, generalists and specialists.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is increasing in prevalence and significance as a global public health issue. Appropriate management of CKD stages 3-4 in either generalist or specialist care is essential in order to slow disease progression. As various consulting options between services may be used, it is important to understand how patients and practitioners view these options. OBJECTIVE: To elicit patient and practitioner views and preferences on the acceptability and appropriateness of referral practices and consulting options for CKD stage 3-4. DESIGN: A mixed methods approach involving a semi-structured interview and structured rating exercise administered by telephone. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult (18+) patients with CKD stage 3-4 were recruited via their General Practitioner (GP). Practitioners were recruited from both general and specialist services. RESULTS: Sixteen patients and twenty-two practitioners participated in the study between July and September, 2011. Both patients and practitioners preferred 'GP with access to a specialist' and least preferred 'Specialist Review'. Computer review and telephone review were acceptable to participants under certain conditions. Practitioners favoured generalist management of patients with CKD 3. Specialists recommended active discharge of patients with stabilised stage 4 back to generalist care. Both generalists and specialists strongly supported sharing patients' medical records via electronic consultation systems. CONCLUSION: Participants tended to prefer the current model of CKD management. Suggested improvements included; increasing the involvement of patients in referral and discharge decisions; improving the adequacy of information given to specialists on referral and encouraging further use of clinical guidelines in practice.

Health-related quality of life and risk factor control: the importance of educational level in prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe and to analyse the importance of educational level for controlled risk factors and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: This observational study was conducted in nine European countries (5632 patients in 249 practices). We compared patients with a low level of education (up to 9 years) with patients with a high level of education (>9 years), with regard to controlled cardiovascular disease risk factors and HRQoL. A multilevel approach was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Patients with a low level of education were older (P < 0.001), more often female (P < 0.001), more often single (P < 0.001) and had a higher number of other conditions (e.g. heart failure) (P < 0.001). Significant differences in terms of controlled risk factors were revealed for blood pressure (RR) ≤ 140/90 mmHg (P = 0.039) and the sum of controlled risk factors (P = 0.027). Higher age, lower education, female gender, living as single, patient group (coronary heart disease patients) and the number of other conditions were negatively associated with HRQoL. A higher sum of controlled risk factors were positively associated with higher HRQoL in the whole sample (r = 0.0086, P < 0.001) as well as in both educational-level groups (r = 0.0075, P = 0.038 in the low-level group and r = 0.0082, P = 0.001 in the high-level group). CONCLUSION: Patients with a lower educational level were more often females, singles, had a higher number of other conditions, a higher number of uncontrolled risk factors and a lower HRQoL. However, the higher the control of risk factors was, the higher the HRQoL was overall as well as in both educational-level groups.

Tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices. METHODS: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.

Tools for measuring patient safety in primary care settings using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patient contacts occur in general practice but general practice patient safety has been poorly described and under-researched to date compared to hospital settings. Our objective was to produce a set of patient safety tools and indicators that can be used in general practices in any healthcare setting and develop a 'toolkit' of feasible patient safety measures for general practices in England. METHODS: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method exercise was conducted with a panel of international experts in general practice patient safety. Statements were developed from an extensive systematic literature review of patient safety in general practice. We used standard RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method rating methods to identify necessary items for assessing patient safety in general practice, framed in terms of the Structure-Process-Outcome taxonomy. Items were included in the toolkit if they received an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 with agreement (no more than two panel members rating the statement outside a 3-point distribution around the median). RESULTS: Of 205 identified statements, the panel rated 101 as necessary for assessing the safety of general practices. Of these 101 statements, 73 covered structures or organisational issues, 22 addressed processes and 6 focused on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and tested tools that can lead to interventions to improve safety outcomes in general practice. This paper reports the first attempt to systematically develop a patient safety toolkit for general practice, which has the potential to improve safety, cost effectiveness and patient experience, in any healthcare system.

Effectiveness of a quality management program in dental care practices.

BACKGROUND: Structured quality management is an important aspect for improving patient dental care outcomes, but reliable evidence to validate effects is lacking. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of a quality management program in primary dental care settings in Germany. METHODS: This was an exploratory study with a before-after-design. 45 dental care practices that had completed the European Practice Assessment (EPA) accreditation scheme twice (intervention group) were selected for the study. The mean interval between the before and after assessment was 36 months. The comparison group comprised of 56 dental practices that had undergone their first assessment simultaneously with follow-up assessment in the intervention group. Aggregated scores for five EPA domains: 'infrastructure', 'information', 'finance', 'quality and safety' and 'people' were calculated. RESULTS: In the intervention group, small non-significant improvements were found in the EPA domains. At follow-up, the intervention group had higher scores on EPA domains as compared with the comparison group (range of differences was 4.2 to 10.8 across domains). These differences were all significant in regression analyses, which controlled for relevant dental practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Dental care practices that implemented a quality management program had better organizational quality in contrast to a comparison group. This may reflect both improvements in the intervention group and a selection effect of dental practices volunteering for the first round of EPA practice assessment.

The relationship between quality of care and self-management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional survey in primary care in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Achieving glycaemic control in diabetes reduces complications and improves outcomes. Glycaemic control requires both good quality clinical care and effective self-management support. However, the relationship between these factors in routine clinical practice is unclear. AIMS: To evaluate baseline levels of self-management and clinical quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care in Mexico and to explore relationships between measures of self-management and clinical quality of care. METHODS: The sample consisted of adults (N=205) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for over a year and registered at one of five practices in the Mexican Institute of Social Security in Aguascalientes. Self-management and quality of care were measured using medical record review and interviews, including validated measures of diabetes knowledge, self-care behaviours, self-efficacy, treatment intensification, continuity of care, doctor-patient communication, and patient satisfaction with diabetes care. HbA1c and cholesterol tests were taken. RESULTS: There were few associations between measures of self-management, and between measures of the quality of clinical care. 'Strong' knowledge about medical prescription was associated with higher diabetes knowledge (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). Diabetes self-efficacy was associated with self-care behaviours (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.81). Patient-doctor communication was associated with continuity of care (Chi-squared = 11.03, P <0.05), with patient satisfaction (ß = 6.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 7.93) and with diabetes self-efficacy (ß = 0.70, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20, P <0.01). Patient satisfaction was associated with continuity of care (F = 7.82, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The associations between measures of self-management and quality of care were modest. Patients who were achieving high levels of one aspect of care were not necessarily receiving high levels of the other. This indicates that different factors are likely to be driving each aspect of care and highlights the importance of measuring their relative importance.

Developing a quality framework for community pharmacy: a systematic review of international literature.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the defining features of the quality of community pharmacy (CP) services and synthesise these into an evidence-based quality framework. DESIGN: Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: International research evidence (2005 onwards) identified from six electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO) was reviewed systematically from October 2022 to January 2023. Search terms related to 'community pharmacy' and 'quality'. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion or exclusion criteria, followed by full-text screening by at least two authors. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies relevant to quality in CP were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Following narrative synthesis, a patient and public involvement event was held to further refine the quality framework. RESULTS: Following the title and abstract screening of 11 493 papers, a total of 81 studies (qualitative and quantitative) were included. Of the 81 included studies, 43 investigated quality dimensions and/or factors influencing CP service quality; 21 studies assessed patient satisfaction with and/or preferences for CP, and 17 studies reported the development and assessment of quality indicators, standards and guidelines for CPs, which can help define quality.The quality framework emerging from the global literature consisted of six dimensions: person-centred care, access, environment, safety, competence and integration within local healthcare systems. Quality was defined as having timely and physical access to personalised care in a suitable environment that is safe and effective, with staff competent in the dispensing process and pharmacy professionals possessing clinical knowledge and diagnostic skills to assess and advise patients relative to pharmacists' increasingly clinical roles. CONCLUSION: The emerging framework could be used to measure and improve the quality of CP services. Further research and feasibility testing are needed to validate the framework according to the local healthcare context.

Users' Perceptions of Access to and Quality of Unified Health System Services in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study and Implications to Healthcare Management Challenges.

Evaluating the access to and quality of healthcare services from the users' perspective is an important assessment process to identify priorities. This study assessed the profile of health service usage and the views of the Unified Health System (SUS) users about the access to and quality of SUS public health services. A cross-sectional study was conducted with participants from the Coastal Lowlands Region of the Rio de Janeiro State/Brazil, between August and November 2023. The association between categorical variables was analyzed using the Pearson Chi-Square test, using R software 4.3. A total of 200 individuals were interviewed using a 66-question survey instrument. Participants who reported using SUS services more frequently rated this system as essential (p-value = 0.031). However, overall, 64% of participants rated the quality of care to be very bad/bad and 34.9% rated access as very bad/bad. Access was considered poor by respondents who used public services rarely or sometimes (p-value = 0.002). In terms of accessing SUS services consultations provided by specialists (e.g., neurologists), these were available only in another municipality (p-value = 0.001). Many participants were SUS dependent for health services, and gaps and weaknesses were observed regarding users' perspectives of the access to and quality of SUS health care. Policymakers should prioritize evaluations and dialogue with the community to make SUS services responsive and to optimize value-for-money in health service planning.

Precision of individual and composite performance scores: the ideal number of indicators in an indicator set.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, quality indicators are used to assess the quality of care of family practice. Such assessments need to have an adequate precision, so that the results can be interpreted correctly. However, a small sample size per practitioner can lead to inadequate precision. A possible solution could be to create composite performance scores. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between sample size and precision. We examine whether a composite performance score has an increased precision and how many indicators are needed minimally to achieve this level of precision. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a descriptive statistical study on data from the medical records of 455 Dutch practices. We included 3 different conditions: diabetes (12 indicators), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4 indicators), and Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management (9 indicators). RESULTS: For individual quality indicators, patient samples close to 100 are required to achieve even moderate precision (10 percentage points) on the performance scores. This number decreases substantially when a composite score is used. A composite derived from combining 5 to 7 indicators can provide much the same precision of measurement as one made up from a much larger number of indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The added value of a composite score depends on the a priori reasons for measuring quality. Our results indicate that especially for formative quality improvement a small number of carefully selected indicators can provide a sufficiently precise composite measure.

Strategies for reducing potentially avoidable hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.

PURPOSE: Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are seen as potentially avoidable with optimal primary care. Little is known, however, about how primary care physicians rate these hospitalizations and whether and how they could be avoided. This study explores the complex causality of such hospitalizations from the perspective of primary care physicians. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 12 primary care physicians from 10 primary care clinics in Germany regarding 104 hospitalizations of 81 patients with ACSCs at high risk of rehospitalization. RESULTS: Participating physicians rated 43 (41%) of the 104 hospitalizations to be potentially avoidable. During the interviews the cause of hospitalization fell into 5 principal categories: system related (eg, unavailability of ambulatory services), physician related (eg, suboptimal monitoring), medical (eg, medication side effects), patient related (eg, delayed help-seeking), and social (eg, lack of social support). Subcategories frequently associated with physicians' rating of hospitalizations for ACSCs as potentially avoidable were after-hours absence of the treating physician, failure to use ambulatory services, suboptimal monitoring, patients' fearfulness, cultural background and insufficient language skills of patients, medication errors, medication nonadherence, and overprotective caregivers. Comorbidities and medical emergencies were frequent causes attributed to ACSC-based hospitalizations that were rated as being unavoidable. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians rated a significant proportion of hospitalizations for ACSCs to be potentially avoidable. Strategies to avoid these hospitalizations may target after-hours care, optimal use of ambulatory services, intensified monitoring of high-risk patients, and initiatives to improve patients' willingness and ability to seek timely help, as well as patients' medication adherence.

Assessing primary care in Austria: room for improvement.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence that strong primary care achieves better health at lower costs. Although primary care can be measured, in many countries, including Austria, there is little understanding of primary care development. OBJECTIVE: Assessing the primary care development in Austria. METHODS: A primary care assessment tool developed by Barbara Starfield in 1998 was implemented in Austria. This tool defines 15 primary care characteristics and distinguishes between system and practice characteristics. Each characteristic was evaluated by six Austrian primary care experts and rated as 2 (high), 1 (intermediate) or 0 (low) points, respectively, to their primary care strength (maximum score: n = 30). RESULTS: Austria received 7 out of 30 points; no characteristic was rated as '2' but 8 were rated as '0'. Compared with the 13 previously assessed countries, Austria ranks 10th of 14 countries and is classified as a 'low primary care' country. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first evidence concerning primary care in Austria, benchmarking it as weak and in need of development. The practicable application of an existing assessment tool can be encouraging for other countries to generate evidence about their primary care system as well.