Who consults chiropractors in Victoria, Australia?: Reasons for attending, general health and lifestyle habits of chiropractic patients.

BACKGROUND: COAST (Chiropractic Observational and Analysis STudy) reported the clinical practices of chiropractors. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe the chiropractic patient demographic and health characteristics; 2) describe patient-stated reasons for visiting a chiropractor; 3) describe chiropractic patient lifestyle characteristics; 4) compare, where possible, chiropractic patient characteristics to the general Australian population. METHODS: Fifty-two chiropractors in Victoria, Australia, provided information for up to 100 consecutive encounters. If patients attended more than once during the 100 encounters, only data from their first encounter were included in this study. Where possible patient characteristics were compared with the general Australian population. RESULTS: Data were collected from December 2010 to September 2012. Data were provided for 4464 encounters, representing 3287 unique individuals. The majority of chiropractic encounters were for musculoskeletal conditions or for wellness/maintenance. The majority of patient comorbidities were musculoskeletal, circulatory or endocrine/metabolic in nature. Eight hundred chiropractic patients (57 %, 95 % CI: 53-61) described their self-reported health as excellent or very good and 138 patients (10 %, 95 % CI: 8-12) as fair or poor. Seventy-one percent of adult male patients (18 years and older), and 53 % of adult female patients, were overweight or obese. Fourteen percent (n = 188, 95 % CI: 12-16) were current smokers and 27 % (n = 359, 95 % CI: 24-31) did not meet Australian alcohol consumption guidelines. Less than half of the chiropractic patients participated in vigorous exercise at least twice per week. Approximately 20 % ate one serving of vegetables or less each day, and approximately 50 % ate one serve of fruit or less each day. Compared to the general Australian population, chiropractic patients were less likely to smoke, less likely to be obese and more likely to describe their health in positive terms. However, many patients were less likely to meet alcohol consumption guidelines, drinking more than is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: In general, chiropractic patients had more positive health and lifestyle characteristics than the Australian population. However, there were a significant proportion of chiropractic patients who did not meet guideline recommendations about lifestyle habits and there is an opportunity for chiropractors to reinforce public health messages with their patients.

Comorbidities and risk factors among patients with schizophrenia.

General practitioners (GPs) are charged with maintaining a holistic approach to their patients' health. While most patients with schizophrenia attend public mental health services and/or non-government organisations supporting people with mental illness, 88.2% of people with a psychotic illness (the majority being schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder) had visited a GP in the previous year. For at least 30-40% of people living with schizophrenia in Australia, ongoing management is provided by their GP alone. Moreover, there is evidence that patients with schizophrenia value the help provided by GPs. Patients with schizophrenia have reduced life expectancy. Overseas research (primarily from the UK and US) has found that the poor physical health of patients with schizophrenia can be attributed to a number of factors such as modifiable lifestyle risk factors and side effects of medication, compounded by causes intrinsic to the illness such as mental stress and loss of initiative.

Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study (COAST): providing an understanding of current chiropractic practice.

OBJECTIVES: COAST (Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study) aimed to describe the clinical practices of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using the BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) methods for general practice. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 180 chiropractors in active clinical practice in Victoria were randomly selected from the list of 1298 chiropractors registered on Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria. Twenty-four chiropractors were ineligible, 72 agreed to participate, and 52 completed the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each participating chiropractor documented encounters with up to 100 consecutive patients. For each chiropractor-patient encounter, information collected included patient health profile, patient reasons for encounter, problems and diagnoses, and chiropractic care. RESULTS: Data were collected on 4464 chiropractor-patient encounters from 52 chiropractors between 11 December 2010 and 28 September 2012. In most (71%) encounters, patients were aged 25-64 years; 1% of encounters were with infants (age < 1 year; 95% CI, 0.3%-3.2%). Musculoskeletal reasons for encounter were described by patients at a rate of 60 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 54-67 encounters) and maintenance and wellness or check-up reasons were described at a rate of 39 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 33-47 encounters). Back problems were managed at a rate of 62 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 55-71 encounters). The most frequent care provided by the chiropractors was spinal manipulative therapy and massage. CONCLUSIONS: A range of conditions are managed by chiropractors in Victoria, Australia, but most commonly these conditions are musculoskeletal-related. These results can be used by stakeholders of the chiropractic profession in workforce development, education and health care policy.

Extending ICPC-2 PLUS terminology to develop a classification system specific for the study of chiropractic encounters.

BACKGROUND: Typically a large amount of information is collected during healthcare research and this information needs to be organised in a way that will make it manageable and to facilitate clear reporting. The Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) was a cross sectional observational study that described the clinical practices of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. To code chiropractic encounters COAST used the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) with the PLUS general practice clinical terminology to code chiropractic encounters. This paper describes the process by which a chiropractic-profession specific terminology was developed for use in research by expanding the current ICPC-2 PLUS system. METHODS: The coder referred to the ICPC-2 PLUS system when coding chiropractor recorded encounter details (reasons for encounter, diagnoses/problems and processes of care). The coder used rules and conventions supplied by the Family Medicine Research Unit at the University of Sydney, the developers of the PLUS system. New chiropractic specific terms and codes were created when a relevant term was not available in ICPC-2 PLUS. RESULTS: Information was collected from 52 chiropractors who documented 4,464 chiropractor-patient encounters. During the study, 6,225 reasons for encounter and 6,491 diagnoses/problems were documented, coded and analysed; 169 new chiropractic specific terms were added to the ICPC-2 PLUS terminology list. Most new terms were allocated to diagnoses/problems, with reasons for encounter generally well covered in the original ICPC 2 PLUS terminology: 3,074 of the 6,491 (47%) diagnoses/problems and 274 of the 6,225 (4%) reasons for encounter recorded during encounters were coded to a new term. Twenty nine new terms (17%) represented chiropractic processes of care. CONCLUSION: While existing ICPC-2 PLUS terminology could not fully represent chiropractic practice, adding terms specific to chiropractic enabled coding of a large number of chiropractic encounters at the desired level. Further, the new system attempted to record the diversity among chiropractic encounters while enabling generalisation for reporting where required. COAST is ongoing, and as such, any further encounters received from chiropractors will enable addition and refinement of ICPC-2 PLUS (Chiro). More research is needed into the diagnosis/problem descriptions used by chiropractors.

The quality of data on general practice - a discussion of BEACH reliability and validity.

BACKGROUND: The quality of data used to measure quality is as important as quality of care itself. Any organisation undertaking studies within general practice should ensure the methods they adopt meet these 'best practice' standards, to ensure and demonstrate the reliability, representativeness and quality of their data. The BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) program is a continuous national study of general practice activity in Australia that began in April 1998. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the methods used to ensure and test BEACH data representativeness and reliability, and responds to frequently asked questions. DISCUSSION: BEACH measures the process of care at general practitioner-patient encounters including problems managed and treatments provided. BEACH data are used by the profession, government, researchers and industry. We discuss how BEACH data differ from Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and National Health Survey data. We also consider challenges to achieving national electronic collection of health data in general practice in Australia.

The contribution of demographic and morbidity factors to self-reported visit frequency of patients: a cross-sectional study of general practice patients in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that affect patients' utilisation of health services is important for health service provision and effective patient management. This study aimed to investigate the specific morbidity and demographic factors related to the frequency with which general practice patients visit a general practitioner/family physician (GP) in Australia. METHODS: A sub-study was undertaken as part of an ongoing national study of general practice activity in Australia. A cluster sample of 10,755 general practice patients were surveyed through a random sample of 379 general practitioners. The patient reported the number of times he/she had visited a general practitioner in the previous twelve months. The GP recorded all the patient's major health problems, including those managed at the current consultation. RESULTS: Patients reported an average of 8.8 visits to a general practitioner per year. After adjusting for other patient demographics and number of health problems, concession health care card holders made on average 2.6 more visits per year to a general practitioner than did non-card holders (p <.001). After adjustment, patients from remote/very remote locations made 2.3 fewer visits per year than patients from locations where services were highly accessible (p <.001). After adjustment for patient demographics, patients with diagnosed anxiety made on average 2.7 more visits per year (p = 0.003), those with diagnosed depression 2.2 more visits than average (p <.0001), and those with back problems 2.4 more visits (p = 0.009) than patients without the respective disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety, back pain and depression are associated with greater patient demand for general practice services than other health problems. The effect of sociodemographic factors on patient utilisation of general practice services is complex. Equity of access to general practice services remains an issue for patients from remote areas, while concession health care card holders are attending general practice more frequently than other patients relative to their number of health problems.

Determinants of GP billing in Australia: content and time.

OBJECTIVE: To examine relations between consultation length and content, and general practitioner choice of claiming level B or C when billing consultations > 20 minutes through Medicare. DESIGN AND SETTING: A secondary analysis from a cross-sectional national general practice survey (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003) of 101 112 consultations with 2811 GPs, comparing level B consultations 20 minutes (claimed as level B or C), and consultations > 20 minutes claimed as level C with those claimed as level B. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consultation length, encounter, patient characteristics; number, type of problems managed; type and frequency of treatments provided in relation to consultation level charged. RESULTS: There were 80 476 level B consultations 20 minutes claimed as level B or C (5725 [38.4%] level B; 9168 [61.5%] level C). Longer level B+C consultations differed from shorter level B consultations in patient sex, Department of Veterans' Affairs card status, and new-patient status, and involved more reasons for encounter, problems managed, chronic problems, clinical treatments, therapeutic procedures, referrals and pathology and imaging orders. Longer consultations claimed as level C were significantly longer (0.9 minutes) than those claimed as level B and involved more reasons for encounter, problems managed (particularly new, chronic, psychosocial and gynaecological) and more clinical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics and consultation content differ at longer consultations. Consultations charged as level C are more complex than those charged as level B. GPs use both time and content when choosing item number, rather than relying only on specified time thresholds. This has implications for future restructuring of MBS attendance items.