POS1166 UNDERSTANDING PRESCRIPTION BEHAVIOR ACROSS HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS IN TREATING KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS BEFORE AND DURING THE 2020 COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background:Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) treatment aims to provide symptom relief, easing joint pain and enabling mobility. The COVID-19 pandemic affected healthcare systems globally, including ways OA patients were treated.Objectives:This study is to understand how treatment management of knee OA patients and prescribing behavior across US healthcare professionals (HCPs) was affected when COVID-19 impacted healthcare systems and regimes globallyMethods:A multi-center online medical chart review study of patients with OA was conducted between May – July 2019 & 2020 among US rheumatologists (rheums), orthopedic surgeons (orthos), primary care physicians with a focus in sports medicine (SM PCPs), and pain specialists, practicing across hospital and private practices. Recruited from a large access panel, physicians were screened for duration of practice in their specialty (3-50 years) and caseload (35 or more knee OA patients personally managed, at least 10 of which must be classified as moderate-severe). Patient charts were recorded for the next 5 eligible patients seen during the screening period. Respondents abstracted patient demographics and treatment regimes used. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the dataResults:275 physicians were recruited and collectively reported 1375 patients between May-Jul 2019; 260 physicians were recruited and collectively reported 1300 patients between May-Jul 2020.Looking at treatments patients were receiving at time of reporting, oral medications, particularly NSAIDs, were widely used, regardless of the physician specialty. A directional increase of 6% in the proportion of reported patients deriving from sampled primary care SM PCPs from pre-COVID (Q219) to during COVID (Q220), whilst the same is not true for rheums, orthos, and pain specialists.Figure 1.Medication usage in reported knee OA patients across all sampled specialties - Q2 2019 vs Q2 2020With regards to the usage of injectable therapy, the opposite pattern is seen - higher proportions of reported patients deriving from sampled rheums, orthos & pain specialists receiving injectables vs those deriving from sampled SM PCPs. While focusing on orthos, the proportion of reported patients deriving from them who receive injectables grew by 5% in Q220 (during COVID) vs Q219 (pre-COVID) – directionally more so than other specialties. This is possibly due to limited elective surgeries during the pandemic.Looking deeper into injectable usage amongst reported patients deriving from sampled rheums and orthos, the proportion of the total reported patient set receiving this treatment type is relatively similar across both specialties, prior to, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among reported patients who received surgery, a directionally higher proportion of this reported patient cohort deriving from orthos are noted to receive injectables vs those from rheums – this is true both pre- and during the pandemic.Conclusion:From the sample surveyed, it appears that primary care SM PCPs adopted their treatment adjustment during COVID-19 pandemic differently, by prescribing more orals, while other secondary care physicians (rheums, orthos, pain specialists) focused on injection treatment for longer pain relief. Considering movement restrictions and limited elective surgeries during the pandemic, the lack of targeted treatment options for knee OA has been made more apparent. With a burgeoning pipeline, many of which are targeted therapies, it is hopeful that knee OA treaters will be less reliant on symptom remedies and can readily offer patients’ longer-acting pain relief or disease modifying options to combat joint deteriorationReferences:[1]Ipsos Osteoarthritis Therapy Monitor (May – July 2019, 275 specialists reporting on 1375 OA patients seen in consultation; May – July 2020, 260 specialists reporting on 1300 OA patients seen in consultation, data collected online. Participating physicians were primary treaters and saw a minimum number of 35 knee OA patients). Data © Ipsos 2021, all rights reserved.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

Download Full-text

AB0587 ASSESSING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH HYPERTENSION BY CLINICIAN SPECIALITY

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.549 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 1330.2-1331

Author(s):

D. Baldock ◽

E. Baynton ◽

C. F. Ng

Keyword(s):

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Sports Medicine ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Bone Erosion ◽

Holistic Treatment ◽

Knee Oa ◽

Patient Demographics ◽

Medical Chart Review ◽

Complex Patients ◽

Minimum Number

Background:Though the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is complex, patients with OA frequently have other comorbidities, including hypertension, which eludes to other considerations needed when deciding appropriate treatment management.Objectives:This study aims to examine the profiles of knee OA patients with hypertension vs. those without any comorbidities, and to elucidate key differences between these patient groups as potential areas of consideration.Methods:A multi-center, online medical chart review study of patients with OA was conducted between May – July 2020 among US rheumatologists (rheums), orthopedic surgeons (orthos), primary care physicians with a focus in sports medicine (SM PCPs), and pain specialists. Physicians recruited were screened for duration of practice in their specialty (3-50 years) and caseload (>=35 knee OA patients personally managed, at least 10 being moderate-severe). Patient charts were recorded for the next 5 eligible patients seen during the screening period. Respondents abstracted patient demographics and treatments used. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data.Results:260 physicians were recruited and collectively reported 796 knee OA patients; 559 were reported to experience hypertension whilst 237 were reported as not experiencing any comorbidities.Reported hypertension patients were significantly older (mean 67 vs 59 years old, respectively; p≤0.01) and weighed more (mean 82kg vs 77kg, respectively; p≤0.01) than patients without comorbidities; they were also significantly more likely to be previous smokers compared to those without comorbidities (23% vs 8%, respectively; p≤0.01). With regards to current knee OA severity, both orthos and SM PCPs reported a significantly higher proportion of hypertension patients that were deemed ‘severe’ (physician opinion) vs patients without comorbidities (orthos: 50% vs 32%, respectively; SM PCPs: 42% vs 23%, respectively; p≤0.01).Rheums and pain specialists reported greater mild opioid usage amongst hypertension patients compared to those without comorbidities (rheums: 28% vs 10%, respectively (p≤0.05); pain specialists: 40% vs 9%, respectively; (p≤0.01)); orthos and SM PCPs stated significantly greater use of corticosteroid injections amongst their reported hypertension patients vs those without comorbidities (orthos: 60% vs 41%, respectively; SM PCPs: 40% vs 19%, respectively; p≤0.01). Hypertension patients reported by orthos and SM PCPs are more likely to be considered for total knee replacement (TKR) surgery compared to those without comorbidities (orthos: 59% vs 32%, respectively; SM PCPs: 37% vs 19%, respectively; p≤0.01). Conversely, hypertension patients reported by rheums are less likely to be considered for TKR vs those without comorbidities (41% vs 18%, respectively; p≤0.05).Reported hypertension patients had a significantly higher mean Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS) score than patients without comorbidities (6.6 vs 5.9, respectively; p≤0.01). A significantly higher proportion of patients with hypertension demonstrate radiographic evidence of bone erosion compared to those without comorbidities (69% vs 56%, respectively; p≤0.01).Conclusion:From the sample surveyed, knee OA patients with hypertension may require a more specific and holistic treatment approach that takes into account their CV status and managing physician specialty. Further investigation using comparator cohort is warranted.References:[1]Ipsos Osteoarthritis Therapy Monitor (May – July 2020, 260 specialists reporting on 769 knee OA patients seen in consultation, data collected online. Participating physicians were primary treaters and saw a minimum number of 35 knee OA patients). Data © Ipsos 2021, all rights reserved.[2]Ipsos Osteoarthritis Therapy Monitor (May – July 2020, 260 specialists reporting on 769 knee OA patients seen in consultation, data collected online. Participating physicians were primary treaters and saw a minimum number of 35 knee OA patients). Data © Ipsos 2021, all rights reserved.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

Download Full-text

Influence of sex and gender on the management of late-stage knee osteoarthritis

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY ◽

10.1007/s12306-021-00725-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

B. Moretti ◽

A. Spinarelli ◽

G. Varrassi ◽

L. Massari ◽

A. Gigante ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gender Differences ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Pain Tolerance ◽

Exact Nature ◽

Sex And Gender ◽

Physician Practices ◽

Knee Oa ◽

And Gender ◽

Sex And Gender Differences

Abstract Purpose The exact nature of sex and gender differences in knee osteoarthritis (OA) among patient candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unclear and requires better elucidation to guide clinical practice. The purpose of this investigation was to survey physician practices and perceptions about the influence of sex and gender on knee OA presentation, care, and outcomes after TKA. Methods The survey questions were elaborated by a multidisciplinary scientific board composed of 1 pain specialist, 4 orthopedic specialists, 2 physiatrists, and 1 expert in gender medicine. The survey included 5 demographic questions and 20 topic questions. Eligible physician respondents were those who treat patients during all phases of care (pain specialists, orthopedic specialists, and physiatrists). All survey responses were anonymized and handled via remote dispersed geographic participation. Results Fifty-six physicians (71% male) accepted the invitation to complete the survey. In general, healthcare professionals expressed that women presented worse symptomology, higher pain intensity, and lower pain tolerance and necessitated a different pharmacological approach compared to men. Pain and orthopedic specialists were more likely to indicate sex and gender differences in knee OA than physiatrists. Physicians expressed that the absence of sex and gender-specific instruments and indications is an important limitation on available studies. Conclusions Healthcare professionals perceive multiple sex and gender-related differences in patients with knee OA, especially in the pre- and perioperative phases of TKA. Sex and gender bias sensitivity training for physicians can potentially improve the objectivity of care for knee OA among TKA candidates.

Download Full-text

Patient and physician perspectives guiding intra-articular treatment choice in knee osteoarthritis: stakeholders are aligned on treatment priorities but have different assessments of treatment effect

Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine ◽

10.1136/jisakos-2020-000578 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. jisakos-2020-000578

Author(s):

Vandana Menon ◽

Caroline Huber ◽

Alexandria Portelli ◽

Marissa Baker-Wagner ◽

Scott Kelley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Symptom Relief ◽

Activity Level ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Treatment Needs ◽

Knee Oa ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Selection Factors

ObjectivesKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of health-related disability. In the absence of curative non-operative therapies, treatment goals are limited to symptom relief. Data are limited on how patients and physicians prioritise available treatment options. We assessed patients’ preferences for and physicians’ attitudes towards intra-articular treatments including corticosteroids (IACS), an extended-release corticosteroid (TA-ER) and hyaluronic acids (IAHA).MethodsWe conducted a prospective, IRB-exempt, double-blind survey of patients with and providers who treat knee OA. Respondents were required to have received or prescribed TA-ER in a non-trial setting. We evaluated patients’ OA history, impact of knee OA and treatment preferences, and physicians’ decision-making and prescribing experiences.ResultsOf the 97 patient participants, mean age was 56 years, 70.0% were women, 75.0% had bilateral knee OA and 46.4% were diagnosed over 5 years ago. Of the 50 physician participants, 34.0% were rheumatologists, 42.0% were orthopaedic surgeons and 60.0%, on average, treat 50+ patients with knee OA per month. Treatment selection factors considered ‘very important’ to patients and physicians included disease severity (88.7%, 82.0%), impact on quality of life (88.7%, 72.0%), disease extent (84.5%, 54.0%) and activity level (80.4%, 64.0%). A majority (93.8%) of patients indicated moderate to severe difficulty with their knees. Fewer patients (76.3%) reported shared decision making compared with physicians (92.0%). Half (50.5%) of the patients reported that they experienced months of pain relief with TA-ER, 27.7% with IACS and 18.8% with IAHA. Physician assessments were consistent but estimated a greater duration of treatment effects than that reported by patients across all therapies.ConclusionWhile knee OA has a tremendous impact on patients, there are significant unmet treatment needs. The increasing use of patient-reported outcomes will allow patients and physicians to track pain and functional status over time and across therapies, improving shared decision-making.

Download Full-text

Differences between primary care physicians and specialised neurotologists in the diagnosis of dizziness and vertigo in Japan

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology ◽

10.1017/s0022215120001309 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 134 (9) ◽

pp. 764-768

Author(s):

T Ito ◽

S Matsuyama ◽

T Shiozaki ◽

D Nishikawa ◽

H Akioka ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Primary Care ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Medical Records ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Symptom Relief ◽

Accurate Diagnosis ◽

High Quality

AbstractObjectiveVertigo and dizziness are frequent symptoms in patients at out-patient services. An accurate diagnosis for vertigo or dizziness is essential for symptom relief; however, it is often challenging. This study aimed to identify differences in diagnoses between primary-care physicians and specialised neurotologists.MethodIn total, 217 patients were enrolled. To compare diagnoses, data was collected from the reference letters of primary-care physicians, medical questionnaires completed by patients and medical records.ResultsIn total, 62.2 per cent and 29.5 per cent of the patients were referred by otorhinolaryngologists and internists, respectively. The cause of vertigo or dizziness and diagnosis was missing in 47.0 per cent of the reference letters. In addition, 67.3 per cent of the diagnoses by previous physicians differed from those reported by specialised neurotologists.ConclusionTo ensure patient satisfaction and high quality of life, an accurate diagnosis for vertigo or dizziness is required; therefore, methods or materials to improve the diagnostic accuracy are needed.

Download Full-text

Effect of Intra-articular Ketorolac Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/2325967120911126 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 232596712091112

Author(s):

Jianda Xu ◽

Yuxing Qu ◽

Huan Li ◽

Aixiang Zhu ◽

Tao Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pain Relief ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Sodium Hyaluronate ◽

Knee Oa ◽

Symptomatic Knee ◽

Group A ◽

Successful Outcomes ◽

Group B ◽

Corticosteroid Injections

Background: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections have been widely used and are considered a mainstay in the nonoperative treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, their increased use can have negative implications, including chondral toxicity and a high risk of infections. As a result, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been considered as an alternative. Purpose: To determine the pain relief and safety of ketorolac versus a corticosteroid to supplement an intra-articular sodium hyaluronate injection for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 84 patients with unilateral symptomatic knee OA receiving 5 weekly injections were enrolled in this retrospective study. Group A (n = 42) received 3 weekly intra-articular corticosteroid injections (0.5% lidocaine, 25 mg of triamcinolone acetonide, and 25 mg of sodium hyaluronate, followed by 2 weekly injections of 0.5% lidocaine and 25 mg of sodium hyaluronate), while group B (n = 42) received 5 weekly ketorolac injections (0.5% lidocaine, 10 mg of ketorolac, and 25 mg of sodium hyaluronate). The following parameters were used to evaluate pain relief and safety: visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and side effects before the injection and at 1, 2, and 5 weeks after treatment commencement as well as 3 months after the last injection. Results: Patients from both groups had a significant improvement in VAS and WOMAC scores from the first injection to final follow-up at 3 months. In the first week, the VAS score was lower in group A ( P = .041), but no significant between-group differences were found for either the VAS or the WOMAC score at the other time points. Of the 42 patients in group A, 34 (81.0%) and 25 (59.5%) achieved successful outcomes at 5 weeks after treatment commencement and 3 months after the last injection, respectively. In group B, 32 (76.2%) and 24 (57.1%) patients achieved successful outcomes at 5 weeks after treatment commencement and 3 months after the last injection, respectively. At final follow-up, no significant difference was found in the successful treatment rate between the groups ( P = .825). Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that intra-articular ketorolac and corticosteroid injections produce the same pain relief and functional improvement.

Download Full-text

P3769Rapid referral to a one-stop AF clinic following possible AF detection by community pharmacists leads to early diagnosis and appropriate anticoagulant treatment

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0619 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

S Antoniou ◽

L Barnett ◽

J Craig ◽

H Patel ◽

T Lobban ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Primary Care ◽

Community Pharmacy ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Community Pharmacists ◽

Long Term Conditions ◽

Patient Consent ◽

One Stop ◽

Pulse Check

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia globally, responsible for one third of ischaemic strokes, often resulting in death or incapacity. This condition, frequently asymptomatic is estimated to be up to 50% undiagnosed. Reducing this risk with appropriate detection and management strategies offers substantial economic and patient benefits. Community pharmacists have been shown to be an accessible healthcare professional capable of detecting atrial fibrillation. Concerns raised utilising community pharmacists is the additional workload for primary care physicians, and lack of a clear pathway to ensure patients are adequate followed with assurance of initiation of anticoagulation therapy. Purpose To assess the feasibility of screening by community pharmacists with onward referral to an innovative one-stop AF clinic to enable identification of new cases of AF and subsequent initiation of anticoagulation within 2 weeks. Methods 21 pharmacies were recruited and trained on pathophysiology of AF and demonstration of pulse taking using pulse check and Kardia mobile device. Any person walking into a community pharmacy aged ≥65 years was offered a free pulse check. For any irregularity detected, individualised counselling was offered with a referral made to a one-stop AF clinic for confirmation and initiation of anticoagulation. Written patient consent was obtained. Results 672 people were recruited with an average age of 69±3.5 years and 58% female (n=389). There was a history of hypertension in 618 (92%) and diabetes in 242 (36%), the most common co-morbidities. 45 people were referred following an irregular pulse or abnormal ECG rhythm strip, of whom 11 (1.6% of total population) had a confirmed AF diagnosis within 30 day follow up. An additional 8 cases with known AF not receiving anticoagulation termed (actionable AF) were also referred. All 19 cases of new or untreated AF were prescribed anticoagulation by the one stop clinic in accordance with guideline recommendations Conclusions ESC guidance recommends opportunistic screening for AF by pulse taking or ECG rhythm strip in patients ≥65 years of age. The 1.6% incidence of new AF was in accordance with meta-analyses identifying 1.4% of those aged ≥65 on a single time point check for presence of AF. Our model utilises the un-tapped skills of community pharmacy to deliver pulse checks of ECG rhythm recordings in an accessible primary care location with a clear referral pathway that is effective in early review and ensuring suitable patients receive anticoagulation. The innovative pathway could provide remote triage at scale and help address the missing people with undiagnosed and actionable AF by opening new channels for identification by healthcare professionals managing long term conditions who like pharmacists have not been considered suitable healthcare professionals due to lack of an established pathway for confirming the potential diagnosis of AF. Acknowledgement/Funding NHS England Test Bed Programme

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Autologous Bone Marrow Concentrate for Knee Osteoarthritis with and without Adipose Graft

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2014/370621 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 83

Author(s):

Christopher Centeno ◽

John Pitts ◽

Hasan Al-Sayegh ◽

Michael Freeman

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Autologous Bone Marrow ◽

Pain Scale ◽

Bone Marrow Concentrate ◽

Knee Oa ◽

Percentage Improvement ◽

Treatment Type ◽

The Mean ◽

Autologous Bone

Introduction.We investigated the use of autologous bone marrow concentrate (BMC) with and without an adipose graft, for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods.Treatment registry data for patients who underwent BMC procedures with and without an adipose graft were analyzed. Pre- and posttreatment outcomes of interest included the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), the numerical pain scale (NPS), and a subjective percentage improvement rating. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine the effects of treatment type adjusting for potential confounding factors. The frequency and type of adverse events (AE) were also examined.Results.840 procedures were performed, 616 without and 224 with adipose graft. The mean LEFS score increased by 7.9 and 9.8 in the two groups (out of 80), respectively, and the mean NPS score decreased from 4 to 2.6 and from 4.3 to 3 in the two groups, respectively. AE rates were 6% and 8.9% in the two groups, respectively. Although pre- and posttreatment improvements were statistically significant, the differences between the groups were not.Conclusion.BMC injections for knee OA showed encouraging outcomes and a low rate of AEs. Addition of an adipose graft to the BMC did not provide a detectible benefit over BMC alone.

Download Full-text

Do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders: understanding and interpretation of their use in the hospitalised patient in Ireland. A brief report

Journal of Medical Ethics ◽

10.1136/medethics-2016-103986 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

pp. 201-203 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Helen O’Brien ◽

Siobhan Scarlett ◽

Anne Brady ◽

Kieran Harkin ◽

Rose Anne Kenny ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Staff Nurses ◽

University Teaching ◽

Hard Copy ◽

Do Not Resuscitate ◽

Nasogastric Feeding ◽

Care Plans ◽

Hospital Doctors

Following the introduction of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in the 1970s, there was widespread misinterpretation of the term among healthcare professionals. In this brief report, we present findings from a survey of healthcare professionals. Our aim was to examine current understanding of the term do-not-attempt-resuscitate (DNAR), decision-making surrounding DNAR and awareness of current guidelines. The survey was distributed to doctors and nurses in a university teaching hospital and affiliated primary care physicians in Dublin via email and by hard copy at educational meetings from July to December 2014. A total of 519 completed the survey. The response rate in the hospital doctors group was 35.5% (187/527), 19.8% (292/1477) in the nurses group but 68.8% (150/218) in the specialist nurses group and 40% (40/100) in the primary care physician group.Alarmingly, our results demonstrate that 26.8% of staff nurses and 30% of primary care physicians surveyed believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not receive any/at least one of a list of simple treatments including antibiotics, physiotherapy, intravenous fluids, pain relief, oxygen, nasogastric feeding or airway suctioning, which were higher percentages compared to the other hospital doctors and experienced nurses groups with statistically significant differences (p<0.001). Furthermore, a higher percentage of staff nurses (26.8%) and primary care physicians (22.5%) believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not be referred to hospital from home/a nursing home, when compared with other healthcare groups (p<0.001). Our findings highlight continued misunderstanding and over-interpretation of DNAR orders. Further collaboration and information is required for meaningful Advance Care Plans.

Download Full-text

Addressing Suicide Risk According to Different Healthcare Professionals in Spain: A Qualitative Study

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph15102117 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 15 (10) ◽

pp. 2117 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Juan-Luis Muñoz-Sánchez ◽

María Sánchez-Gómez ◽

María Martín-Cilleros ◽

Esther Parra-Vidales ◽

Diego de Leo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Primary Care ◽

At Risk ◽

Suicidal Behavior ◽

Emergency Care ◽

Health Care Professionals ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Main Concern ◽

Patients At Risk

This study analyzes the views of four groups of healthcare professionals who may play a role in the management of suicidal behavior. The goal was to identify key factors for suicide prevention in different areas of the healthcare system. Qualitative research was conducted using focus groups made up of different healthcare professionals who participated in the identification, management, and prevention of suicidal behavior. Professionals included were primary care physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and emergency physicians. ‘Suicide’ was amongst the most relevant terms that came up in discussions most of the times it appeared associated with words such as ‘risk’, danger’, or ‘harm’. In the analysis by categories, the four groups of professionals agreed that interventions in at-risk behaviors are first in importance. Prevention was the second main concern with greater significance among psychiatrists. Primary care professionals call for more time to address patients at risk for suicide and easier access to and communication with the mental health network. Emergency care professionals have a lack of awareness of their role in the detection of risk for suicide in patients who seek attention at emergency care facilities for reasons of general somatic issues. Mental health care professionals are in high demand in cases of self-harm, but they would like to receive specific training in dealing with suicidal behavior.

Download Full-text

Addressing Suicide Risk According to Different Healthcare Professionals in Spain: A Qualitative Study

10.20944/preprints201808.0514.v1 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Juan-Luis Muñoz-Sanchez ◽

María Cruz Sánchez-Gómez ◽

María Victoria Martín-Cilleros ◽

Esther Parra-Vidales ◽

Diego de Leo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Primary Care ◽

At Risk ◽

Emergency Care ◽

Health Care Professionals ◽

Suicidal Behaviour ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Main Concern ◽

Patients At Risk

OBJETIVE: This study analyses the views of four groups of healthcare professionals who may play a role in the management of suicidal behaviour. The goal was to identify key factors for suicide prevention in different areas of the healthcare system. METHODOLOGY: Qualitative research was conducted using focus groups made up of different healthcare professionals who participated in the identification, management and prevention of suicidal behaviour. Professionals included were primary care physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists and emergency physicians. RESULTS: ‘Suicide’ was amongst the most relevant terms that came up in discussions most of the times it appeared associated with words such as ‘risk’, ‘danger’ or ‘harm’. In the analysis by categories, the four groups of professionals agreed that interventions in at-risk behaviours are first in importance. Prevention was the second main concern with greater significance among psychiatrists. DISCUSSION: Primary care professionals claim for more time to address patients at risk for suicide and an easier access to and communication with the mental health network. Emergency care professionals have a lack of awareness of their role in the detection of risk for suicide in patients who seek attention at emergency care facilities for reasons of general somatic issues. Mental health care professionals are in high demand in case of self-harm but they would like to receive specific training in dealing with g suicidal behaviour.

Download Full-text