Guidelines for the investigation of chronic diarrhoea in adults: British Society of Gastroenterology, 3rd edition

Chronic diarrhoea is a common problem, hence clear guidance on investigations is required. This is an updated guideline from 2003 for the investigations of chronic diarrhoea commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). This document has undergone significant revision in content through input by 13 members of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) representing various institutions. The GRADE system was used to appraise the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations.

The management of common gastrointestinal disorders in general practice A survey by the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG) in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders account for 10% of all consultations in primary care. Little is known about the management of GI disorders by general practitioners (GP) across different European countries. AIM AND METHODS: We undertook a postal survey of randomly selected samples of GPs in six European countries (UK, Holland, Spain, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic) to determine patterns of diagnosis, management and service use in GI disorders. RESULTS: We received 939 responses, response rate 32%. Over 80% of GPs were aware of at least three national guidelines for gastrointestinal disease. The availability of open access endoscopy ranged from 28% (Poland) to over 80% (Holland, Czech and UK). For uninvestigated dyspepsia the preferred first line management was proton pump inhibitor therapy (33-82%), Helicobacter pylori test and treat (19-47%), early endoscopy (5-32%), specialist referral (2-21%). Regarding irritable bowel syndrome, 23% of respondents were familiar with one or more diagnostic criteria, but between 7% (Netherlands) and 32% (Poland) would ask for a specialist opinion before making the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The wide variation between GPs both between and within countries partly reflects variations in health care systems but also differing levels of knowledge and awareness, factors which are relevant to educational and research policy.

Guidelines on the irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and practical management.

BACKGROUND: IBS affects 5-11% of the population of most countries. Prevalence peaks in the third and fourth decades, with a female predominance. AIM: To provide a guide for the assessment and management of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome. METHODS: Members of the Clinical Services Committee of The British Society of Gastroenterology were allocated particular areas to produce review documents. Literature searching included systematic searches using electronic databases such as Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases and extensive personal reference databases. RESULTS: Patients can usefully be classified by predominant bowel habit. Few investigations are needed except when diarrhoea is a prominent feature. Alarm features may warrant further investigation. Adverse psychological features and somatisation are often present. Ascertaining the patients' concerns and explaining symptoms in simple terms improves outcome. IBS is a heterogeneous condition with a range of treatments, each of which benefits a small proportion of patients. Treatment of associated anxiety and depression often improves bowel and other symptoms. Randomised placebo controlled trials show benefit as follows: cognitive behavioural therapy and psychodynamic interpersonal therapy improve coping; hypnotherapy benefits global symptoms in otherwise refractory patients; antispasmodics and tricyclic antidepressants improve pain; ispaghula improves pain and bowel habit; 5-HT(3) antagonists improve global symptoms, diarrhoea, and pain but may rarely cause unexplained colitis; 5-HT(4) agonists improve global symptoms, constipation, and bloating; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors improve global symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Better ways of identifying which patients will respond to specific treatments are urgently needed.

Working together across international boundaries: improving the primary-secondary care network.

Much of the discussion in the international dyspepsia healthcare community has been about how practical it is to apply clinical guidelines and whether the division between primary care and certain aspects of secondary care can be adequately reconciled. This article will review some of the recent concepts in dyspepsia management that have touched on primary care and examine the barriers to the worldwide implementation of these guidelines. Closer collaboration between gastroenterologists and general practitioners depends on overcoming these barriers and adapting guidelines to suit local circumstances. These differ across Europe with regard to economic, health service and clinical factors.

Future provision of out of hours primary medical care: a survey with two general practitioner research networks.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain general practitioners' views about the future provision of out of hours primary medical care. DESIGN: Self completing postal questionnaire survey. SETTING: Wessex and north east England. SUBJECTS: 116 general practitioners in the Wessex Primary Care Research Network and 83 in the Northern Primary Care Research Network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intention to reduce or opt out of on call; plans for changing out of hours arrangements; the three most important changes needed to out of hours care; willingness to try, and perceived strengths and limitations of, three alternative out of hours care models--primary care emergency centres, telephone triage services, and cooperatives. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74% (Wessex research network 77% (89/116), northern research network 71% (59/83)). Eighty three per cent of respondents (123/148) were willing to try at least one service model, primary care emergency centres being the most popular option. Key considerations were the potential for a model to reduce time on call and workload, to maintain continuity of care, and to fit the practice context. Sixty one per cent (91/148) hoped to reduce time on call and 25% (37/148) hoped to opt out completely. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were keen to try alternative arrangements for out of hours care delivery, despite the lack of formal trials. The increased flexibility in funding brought about by the recent agreement between the General Medical Services Committee and the Department of Health is likely to lead to a proliferation of different schemes. Careful monitoring will be necessary, and formal trials of new service models are needed urgently.