scholarly journals Genomic Risk Profiling: Attitudes and Use in Personal and Clinical Care of Primary Care Physicians Who Offer Risk Profiling

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 834-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne B. Haga ◽  
Madeline M. Carrig ◽  
Julianne M. O’Daniel ◽  
Lori A. Orlando ◽  
Ley A. Killeya-Jones ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Saudan ◽  
Belen Ponte ◽  
Nicola Marangon ◽  
Chantal Martinez ◽  
Lena Berchtold ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Optimal clinical care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires collaboration between primary care physicians (PCP) and nephrologists. We undertook a randomised trial to determine the impact of superimposed nephrologist care compared to guidelines-directed management by PCPs in CKD patients after hospital discharge. Methods: Stage 3b-4 CKD patients were enrolled during a hospitalization and randomised in two arms: Co-management by PCPs and nephrologists (interventional arm) versus management by PCPs with written instructions and consultations by nephrologists on demand (standard care). Our primary outcome was death or rehospitalisation within the 2 years post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: urgent renal replacement therapy (RRT), decline of renal function and decrease of quality of life at 2 years. Results: From November 2009 to the end of June 2013, we randomised 242 patients. Mean follow-up was 51 + 20 months. Survival without rehospitalisation, GFR decline and elective dialysis initiation did not differ between the two arms. Quality of life was also similar in both groups . Compared to randomised patients, those who either declined to participate in the study or were previously known by nephrologists had a worse survival. Conclusion: These results do not demonstrate a benefit of a regular renal care compared to guided PCPs care in terms of survival or dialysis initiation in CKD patients. Increased awareness of renal disease management among PCPs may be as effective as a co-management by PCPs and nephrologists in order to improve the prognosis of moderate-to-severe CKD.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Saudan ◽  
Belen Ponte ◽  
Nicola Marangon ◽  
Chantal Martinez ◽  
Lena Berchtold ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Optimal clinical care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires collaboration between primary care physicians (PCP) and nephrologists. We undertook a randomised trial to determine the impact of superimposed nephrologist care compared to guidelines-directed management by PCPs in CKD patients after hospital discharge. Methods: Stage 3b-4 CKD patients were enrolled during a hospitalization and randomised in two arms: Co-management by PCPs and nephrologists (interventional arm) versus management by PCPs with written instructions and consultations by nephrologists on demand (standard care). Our primary outcome was death or rehospitalisation within the 2 years post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: urgent renal replacement therapy (RRT), decline of renal function and decrease of quality of life at 2 years. Results: From November 2009 to the end of June 2013, we randomised 242 patients. Mean follow-up was 51 + 20 months. Survival without rehospitalisation, GFR decline and elective dialysis initiation did not differ between the two arms. Quality of life was also similar in both groups . Compared to randomised patients, those who either declined to participate in the study or were previously known by nephrologists had a worse survival. Conclusion: These results do not demonstrate a benefit of a regular renal care compared to guided PCPs care in terms of survival or dialysis initiation in CKD patients. Increased awareness of renal disease management among PCPs may be as effective as a co-management by PCPs and nephrologists in order to improve the prognosis of moderate-to-severe CKD.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254157
Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
Maggie McCann ◽  
Joanna Sale

Background Shared decision-making is a central component of person-centred care and can be facilitated with the use of patient decision aids (PtDA). Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making and PtDA use have been identified, yet integration of PtDAs into clinical care is limited. We sought to understand why, using the concepts of complexity science. Methods We conducted 60-minute in-depth interviews with patients with diabetes, primary care physicians, nurses and dietitians who had participated in a randomized controlled trial examining the impact of MyDiabetesPlan (an online goal-setting PtDA). Relying on a qualitative description approach, we used a semi-structured interview guide to explore participants’ experiences with using MyDiabetesPlan and how it was integrated into the clinical encounter and clinical care. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, then coded independently by two analysts. Findings 17 interviews were conducted (5 physicians, 3 nurses, 2 dietitians, 7 patients). Two themes were developed: (1) MyDiabetesPlan appeared to empower patients by providing tailored patient-important information which engaged them in decision-making and self-care. Patients’ use of MyDiabetesPlan was however impacted by their competing medical conditions, other life priorities and socioeconomic context. (2) MyDiabetesPlan emphasized to clinicians a patient-centred approach that helped patients assume greater ownership for their care. Clinicians’ use of MyDiabetesPlan was impacted by pre-existing clinical tools/workplans, workflow, technical issues, clinic administrative logistics and support, and time. How clinicians adapted to these barriers influenced the degree to which MyDiabetesPlan was integrated into care. Conclusions A complexity lens (that considers relationships between multiple components of a complex system) may yield additional insights to optimize integration of PtDA into clinical care. A complexity lens recognizes that shared decision-making does not occur in the vacuum of a clinical dyad (patient and clinician), and will enable us to develop a family of interventions that address the whole process, rather than individual components. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02379078.


CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S41-S42
Author(s):  
E. Zhang ◽  
F. Razik ◽  
S. Ratnapalan

Introduction: The number of refugees accepted to Canada grew from 24,600 in 2014 to 46,700 in 2016. Many of these refugees have young families and the number of child refugees has increased accordingly. Although child refugee health care has been in the forefront of media and medical attention recently, there is limited data on injury patterns in this population. Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) collects data on injuries in children presenting to the emergency department (ED). Our objective is to examine the clinical presentations and outcomes of refugee children with injuries presenting to a tertiary care paediatric ED. Methods: Our paediatric hospital has approximately 70,000 ED visits per year of which 13,000 are due to injuries and/or poisonings. The CHIRPP database was accessed to identify children with injuries presenting to our ED from April 2014 to March 2017 with Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) registration status. All patient charts were reviewed to extract demographic and clinical care information. Results: There were 74 children with 81 ED visits during the study period of whom 19% were transferred from other facilities. Most of them (72%) were males with a mean age of 8.7 years (standard deviation 4.29). There were significant medical histories in 32% of children. The presentation to our ED (greater than 24 hours post-injury) was seen in 25% of visits. Twenty five percent of injured children were seen in our ED. The distribution of Canadian Triage Acuity Score (CTAS) scores 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 0%, 16%, 37%, 46% and 1% respectively. However, subspecialty consultations were required in 69%, 60% and 27% of CTAS 2, 3 and 4 children respectively. Overall, 46% of all patients required subspecialty consults. The top three categories of injuries include fractures (23%), soft tissue injuries (20%) and lacerations (17%). More than half (56%) required diagnostic imaging. Most (89%) were treated in ED and discharged (average length-of-stay 3 hours 55 minutes) and 11% required admissions. 47% of children lacked primary care physicians. Conclusion: Almost half of refugee children with IFHP status require DI testing, sub-specialty consultations and primary care referrals when presenting to our ED with injuries. Follow up arrangements are needed as many do not have access to primary care providers. This demonstrates a need for securing primary care providers early for this vulnerable population.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (21) ◽  
pp. 2223-2230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily S. Tonorezos ◽  
Dana Barnea ◽  
Richard J. Cohn ◽  
Monica S. Cypriano ◽  
Brice C. Fresneau ◽  
...  

With improvements in cancer treatment and supportive care, a growing population of survivors of childhood cancer at risk for significant and potentially life-threatening late effects has been identified. To provide a current snapshot of the models of care from countries with varying levels of resources and health care systems, stakeholders in childhood cancer survivorship clinical care and research were identified from 18 countries across five continents. Stakeholders responded to a survey and provided a brief narrative regarding the current state of survivorship care. Findings indicate that among pediatric-age survivors of childhood cancer (allowing for differences in age cutoffs across countries), resources are generally available, and a large proportion of survivors are seen by a physician familiar with late effects in most countries. After survivors transition to adulthood, only a minority are seen by a physician familiar with late effects. Despite the need to improve communication between pediatric oncology and primary care, only a few countries have existing national efforts to educate primary care physicians, although many more reported that educational programs are in development. These data highlight common challenges and potential solutions for the lifelong care of survivors of childhood cancer. Combining risk-based and patient-oriented solutions for this population is likely to benefit both providers and patients.


2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 703-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Roux ◽  
Michèle Beaulieu ◽  
Marie-Claude Beaulieu ◽  
François Cabana ◽  
Gilles Boire

Objective.To evaluate 2 incremental levels of intervention designed to increase initiation of osteoporosis treatment by primary care physicians (PCP) following fragility fractures (FF).Methods.Women and men over age 50 years were screened for incident FF in fracture clinics, and eligible outpatients were randomly assigned to standard care (SC) or to either minimal (MIN) or intensive (INT) interventions. The MIN and INT interventions were intended to educate and motivate both patients and PCP, but differed in their frequency of contact and information content. Delivery of osteoporosis medication was confirmed with pharmacists. Treatment rates were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach.Results.At inclusion, 74.3% of 881 outpatients with FF were untreated. Followup at 12 months was completed in 92.3% of patients. Up to 90% of patients treated at inclusion remained treated at 12 months. Among patients who initially were untreated, 18.8% in the SC group, 40.4% in the MIN, and 53.2% in the INT groups were treated at 12 months. Change in treatment rates (adjusted for age and initial treatment) increased significantly after both MIN and INT. Only the INT intervention significantly increased treatment rates in patients with previous fractures. Negative predictors of change in treatment status included non-major FF, age younger than 65 years, and male sex.Conclusion.Both interventions significantly increased initiation of osteoporosis treatment. Our multidisciplinary intervention builds on existing first-line structures and uses minimal specialized resources. Iterative and systematic interventions in the context of clinical care may modify the approach of PCP to osteoporosis management after FF and narrow the care gap in the long term.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Saudan ◽  
Belen Ponte ◽  
Nicola Marangon ◽  
Chantal Martinez ◽  
Lena Berchtold ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Optimal clinical care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires collaboration between primary care physicians (PCP) and nephrologists. We undertook a randomised trial to determine the impact of superimposed nephrologist care compared to guidelines-directed management by PCPs in CKD patients after hospital discharge. Methods: Stage 3b-4 CKD patients were enrolled during a hospitalization and randomised in two arms: Co-management by PCPs and nephrologists (interventional arm) versus management by PCPs with written instructions and consultations by nephrologists on demand (standard care). Our primary outcome was death or rehospitalisation within the 2 years post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: urgent renal replacement therapy (RRT), decline of renal function and decrease of quality of life at 2 years. Results: From November 2009 to the end of June 2013, we randomised 242 patients. Mean follow-up was 51 + 20 months. Survival without rehospitalisation, GFR decline and elective dialysis initiation did not differ between the two arms. Quality of life was also similar in both groups . Compared to randomised patients, those who either declined to participate in the study or were previously known by nephrologists had a worse survival. Conclusion: These results do not demonstrate a benefit of a regular renal care compared to guided PCPs care in terms of survival or dialysis initiation in CKD patients. Increased awareness of renal disease management among PCPs may be as effective as a co-management by PCPs and nephrologists in order to improve the prognosis of moderate-to-severe CKD.


Author(s):  
C. Patterson ◽  
A. Grek ◽  
S. Gauthier ◽  
H. Bergman ◽  
C. Cohen ◽  
...  

Objective:i) To develop evidence based consensus statements on which to build clinical practice guidelines for primary care physicians towards the recognition, assessment and management of dementing disorders; ii) to disseminate and evaluate the impact of these statements and guidelines built on these statements.Options:Structured approach to assessment, including recommended laboratory tests, choices for neuroimaging and referral; management of complications (especially behaviour problems and depression) and use of cognitive enhancing agents.Potential outcomes:Consistent and improved clinical care of persons with dementia; cost containment by more selective use of laboratory investigations, neuroimaging and referrals; appropriate use of cognitive enhancing agents.Evidence:Authors of each background paper were entrusted to: perform a literature search, discover additional relevant material including references cited in retrieved articles; consult with other experts in the field and then synthesize information. Standard rules of evidence were applied. Based upon this evidence, consensus statements were developed by a group of experts, guided by a steering committee of eight individuals from the areas of Neurology, Geriatric Medicine, Psychiatry, Family Medicine, Preventive Health Care and Health Care Systems.Values:Recommendations have been developed with particular attention to the context of primary care and are intended to support family physicians in their ongoing assessment and care of patients with dementia.Benefits, harms and costs:Potential for improved clinical care of individuals with dementia. A dissemination and evaluation strategy will attempt to measure the impact of the recommendations.Recommendations:See text.Validation:Four other sets of consensus statements and/or guidelines have been published recently. These recommendations are generally congruent with our own consensus statements. The consensus statements have been endorsed by relevant bodies in Canada.Sponsors:Funding was provided by equal contributions from seven pharmaceutical companies and by a grant from the Consortium of Canadian Centres for Clinical Cognitive Research (C5R). Contributions were received from two Canadian universities (McGill, McMaster). Several societies supported delegates to the conference.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Saudan ◽  
Belen Ponte ◽  
Nicola Marangon ◽  
Chantal Martinez ◽  
Lena Berchtold ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Optimal clinical care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires collaboration between primary care physicians (PCP) and nephrologists. We undertook a randomised trial to determine the impact of superimposed nephrologist care compared to guidelines-directed management by PCPs in CKD patients after hospital discharge. Methods: Stage 3b-4 CKD patients were enrolled during a hospitalization and randomised in two arms: Co-management by PCPs and nephrologists (interventional arm) versus management by PCPs with written instructions and consultations by nephrologists on demand (standard care). Our primary outcome was death or rehospitalisation within the 2 years post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: urgent renal replacement therapy (RRT), decline of renal function and decrease of quality of life at 2 years. Results: From November 2009 to the end of June 2013, we randomised 242 patients. Mean follow-up was 51 + 20 months. Survival without rehospitalisation, GFR decline and elective dialysis initiation did not differ between the two arms. Quality of life was also similar in both groups . Compared to randomised patients, those who either declined to participate in the study or were previously known by nephrologists had a worse survival. Conclusion: These results do not demonstrate a benefit of a regular renal care compared to guided PCPs care in terms of survival or dialysis initiation in CKD patients. Increased awareness of renal disease management among PCPs may be as effective as a co-management by PCPs and nephrologists in order to improve the prognosis of moderate-to-severe CKD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document