Stephen Buetow

Physician-Patient Relationship and Medication Compliance: A Primary Care Investigation

PURPOSE We assessed the relationship between 4 attributes of the physician-patient relationship and medication compliance. METHODS We conducted a waiting room survey of patients consulting 22 general practitioners in 14 randomly selected practices in Auckland, New Zealand (81% response rate). A total of 370 consecutive patients (75% response rate) completed survey instruments about 4 attributes of the physician-patient relationship. Continuity of care (assessed from use of a usual physician, length of continuity, and perceived importance of continuity) and trust in the physician were ascertained before the consultation. After the consultation the Patient Enablement Index measured the physician’s ability to enable patients in self-care, and concordance between the patient and physician was measured by a 6-item inventory of perceived agreement about the presenting problem and management, were ascertained immediately after the consultation. Compliance with prescribed medication therapy was ascertained by telephone follow-up 4 days after the consultation. RESULTS Overall, 220 patients (61%) received a prescription, and 79% of these patients were taking the medication at follow-up. In a univariate analysis adjusted for clustering, only trust and physician-patient concordance were significantly related to compliance. In analysis further adjusted for health and demographic factors, physician-patient concordance was independently related to compliance (odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.72). CONCLUSIONS Primary care consultations with higher levels of patient-reported physician-patient concordance were associated with one-third greater medication compliance. An emphasis on understanding and facilitating agreement between physician and patient may benefit outcomes in primary care.

Thematic analysis and its reconceptualization as ‘saliency analysis’

Thematic analysis is characteristic of most qualitative research. Themes are groups of codes that recur through being similar or connected to each other in a patterned way. Thematic analysis ignores codes that do not recur yet may nonetheless be important. This paper proposes the concept of ‘saliency analysis’ as an enhancement of thematic analysis. Saliency analysis assesses the degree to which each code recurs, is highly important or both. Codes of high importance are ones that advance understanding or are useful in addressing real world problems, or both. Thus saliency analysis can expose what is non-recurrent but potentially important to the aims of a study.

Indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility, and reliability.

OBJECTIVES: To develop valid, reliable indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing in general practice medical records in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: A nominal group was used to identify potential indicators of appropriateness of prescribing. Their face and content validity were subsequently assessed in a two round Delphi exercise. Feasibility and reliability between raters were evaluated for the indicators for which consensus was reached and were suitable for application. PARTICIPANTS: The nominal group comprised a disciplinary mix of nine opinion leaders and prominent academics in the field of prescribing. The Delphi panel was composed of 100 general practitioners and 100 community pharmacists. RESULTS: The nominal group resulted in 20 items which were refined to produce 34 statements for the Delphi exercise. Consensus was reached on 30, from which 13 indicators suitable for application were produced. These were applied by two independent raters to the records of 49 purposively sampled patients in one general practice. Nine indicators showed acceptable reliability between raters. CONCLUSIONS: 9 indicators of prescribing appropriateness were produced suitable for application to the medical record of any patient on long term medication in United Kingdom general practice. Although the use of the medical record has limitations, this is currently the only available method to assess a patients drug regimen in its entirety.

Clinical governance: bridging the gap between managerial and clinical approaches to quality of care.

Clinical governance has been introduced as a new approach to quality improvement in the UK national health service. This article maps clinical governance against a discussion of the four main approaches to measuring and improving quality of care: quality assessment, quality assurance, clinical audit, and quality improvement (including continuous quality improvement). Quality assessment underpins each approach. Whereas clinical audit has, in general, been professionally led, managers have driven quality improvement initiatives. Quality assurance approaches have been perceived to be externally driven by managers or to involve professional inspection. It is discussed how clinical governance seeks to bridge these approaches. Clinical governance allows clinicians in the UK to lead a comprehensive strategy to improve quality within provider organisations, although with an expectation of greatly increased external accountability. Clinical governance aims to bring together managerial, organisational, and clinical approaches to improving quality of care. If successful, it will define a new type of professionalism for the next century. Failure by the professions to seize the opportunity is likely to result in increasingly detailed external control of clinical activity in the UK, as has occurred in some other countries.

Development of review criteria for assessing the quality of management of stable angina, adult asthma, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To develop review criteria to assess the quality of care for three major chronic diseases: adult asthma, stable angina, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Modified panel process based upon the RAND/UCLA (University College of Los Angeles) appropriateness method. Three multiprofessional panels made up of general practitioners, hospital specialists, and practice nurses. RESULTS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method of augmenting evidence with expert opinion was used to develop criteria for the care of the three conditions. Of those aspects of care which were rated as necessary by the panels, only 26% (16% asthma, 10% non-insulin dependent diabetes, 40% angina) were subsequently rated by the panels as being based on strong scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: The results show the importance of a systematic approach to combining evidence with expert opinion to develop review criteria for assessing the quality of three chronic diseases in general practice. The evidence base for the criteria was often incomplete, and explicit methods need to be used to combine evidence with expert opinion where evidence is not available.

Evidence‐based medicine: the need for a new definition

Evidence is defined by its ability to establish or support conclusions. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) equates evidence with scientific evidence and views factors such as clinical expertise as important in moving from evidence to action. In contrast, we suggest that EBM should acknowledge multiple dimensions of evidence including scientific evidence, theoretic evidence, practical evidence, expert evidence, judicial evidence and ethics-based evidence. What EBM loses by not acknowledging these dimensions as evidence is the ability, among other things, to make and defend judgements based on understandings that complement science and are no less important than those science can offer. We argue for a new definition of EBM that, without forced accommodation or unacceptable compromise, acknowledges dimensions of evidence produced within and outside science.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, 1980-95: systematic literature review.

Abstract Objective: To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom. Design: Review of 62 studies of the appropriateness of prescribing identified from seven electronic databases, from reference lists, and by hand searching of journals. A nominal group of 10 experts helped to define the appropriateness of prescribing. Setting: General practice in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Prevalences of 19 indicators of inappropriate long term prescribing representing five dimensions: indication, choice of drug, drug administration, communication, and review. Results: Prevalences of potentially inappropriate prescribing varied by indicator and chronic condition, but drug dosages outside the therapeutic range consistently recorded the highest rates. The lowest rates were generally associated with indicators of the choice of the drug, except cost minimisation. Communication is studied less frequently than other dimensions of prescribing appropriateness. Conclusions: The evidence base to support allegations of widespread inappropriate prescribing in general practice is unsound. Although inappropriate prescribing has occurred, the scale of the problem is unknown because of limitations associated with selection of a standard, publication bias, and uncertainty about the context of prescribing decisions. Opportunities for cost savings and effectiveness gains are thus unclear. Indicators applicable to individual patients could yield evidence of prescribing appropriateness.

Patient Error: A Preliminary Taxonomy

PURPOSE Current research on errors in health care focuses almost exclusively on system and clinician error. It tends to exclude how patients may create errors that influence their health. We aimed to identify the types of errors that patients can contribute and help manage, especially in primary care. METHODS Eleven nominal group interviews of patients and primary health care professionals were held in Auckland, New Zealand, during late 2007. Group members reported and helped to classify types of potential error by patients. We synthesized the ideas that emerged from the nominal groups into a taxonomy of patient error. RESULTS Our taxonomy is a 3-level system encompassing 70 potential types of patient error. The first level classifies 8 categories of error into 2 main groups: action errors and mental errors. The action errors, which result in part or whole from patient behavior, are attendance errors, assertion errors, and adherence errors. The mental errors, which are errors in patient thought processes, comprise memory errors, mindfulness errors, misjudgments, and—more distally—knowledge deficits and attitudes not conducive to health. CONCLUSION The taxonomy is an early attempt to understand and recognize how patients may err and what clinicians should aim to influence so they can help patients act safely. This approach begins to balance perspectives on error but requires further research. There is a need to move beyond seeing patient, clinician, and system errors as separate categories of error. An important next step may be research that attempts to understand how patients, clinicians, and systems interact to cocreate and reduce errors.

Patient safety and patient error

1which reports that “patients make errors too”. Indeed, at fi rst glance it seems nonsensical to suggest otherwise, not least since the same observation has been made several times over the past half century. 2–4 Yet the contribution of patients (and their caregivers) to medical error has been discussed only rarely. This reluctance to consider patient fallibility and, as a result, to identify and manage the errors that patients make, could threaten patient safety. Does this silence indicate an unwillingness to analyse such a sensitive issue? Or, despite claims to the contrary, is patient error merely a false construction: can patients, by defi nition, not make mistakes? In this Viewpoint, we discuss, and draw attention to, the concept and context of patient errors. We also consider how analysis of the errors to which patients contribute could aid in the development of strategies to avoid such mistakes, and whether such processes could benefi t from active participation by patients. We focus on concerns raised by consumer groups about the quality and safety of health care, 5

Do general practice patients with heart failure understand its nature and seriousness, and want improved information?

This study describes the extent to which patients with heart failure in general practice understand the nature and seriousness of their condition, and want more or better information about it than they currently get. The study involved a random sample of 62 patients receiving care for chronic heart failure in 30 central Auckland, New Zealand, practices. The narrative texts of personal, semi-structured interviews in late 1999 were edited (explicitly and systematically reduced and reassembled) until their interpretation was complete. Approximately 40% of the patients interviewed appeared not to understand the nature and seriousness of their heart failure condition. Two patients had accidentally discovered the diagnosis from inappropriate sources. Eleven patients (18%) expressed wanting improved information about their condition. However, to avoid harm, we did not ask patients about wants for information relating to the seriousness of their heart failure. Through patient education and counselling, providers could help patients to produce an advance written directive of wants for information.