Standard for Use of Reason for Encounter

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Kees van Boven ◽  
Huib Ten Napel
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Bergmann ◽  
Jörg Haasenritter ◽  
Dominik Beidatsch ◽  
Sonja Schwarm ◽  
Kaja Hörner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cough is a relevant reason for encounter in primary care. For evidence-based decision making, general practitioners need setting-specific knowledge about prevalences, pre-test probabilities, and prognosis. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies evaluating cough as reason for encounter in primary care. Methods We conducted a search in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Eligibility criteria and methodological quality were assessed independently by two reviewers. We extracted data on prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis, and estimated the variation across studies. If justifiable in terms of heterogeneity, we performed a meta-analysis. Results We identified 21 eligible studies on prevalence, 12 on aetiology, and four on prognosis. Prevalence/incidence estimates were 3.8–4.2%/12.5% (Western primary care) and 10.3–13.8%/6.3–6.5% in Africa, Asia and South America. In Western countries the underlying diagnoses for acute cough or cough of all durations were respiratory tract infections (73–91.9%), influenza (6–15.2%), asthma (3.2–15%), laryngitis/tracheitis (3.6–9%), pneumonia (4.0–4.2%), COPD (0.5–3.3%), heart failure (0.3%), and suspected malignancy (0.2–1.8%). Median time for recovery was 9 to 11 days. Complete recovery was reported by 40.2- 67% of patients after two weeks, and by 79% after four weeks. About 21.1–35% of patients re-consulted; 0–1.3% of acute cough patients were hospitalized, none died. Evidence is missing concerning subacute and chronic cough. Conclusion Prevalences and incidences of cough are high and show regional variation. Acute cough, mainly caused by respiratory tract infections, is usually self-limiting (supporting a “wait-and-see” strategy). We have no setting-specific evidence to support current guideline recommendations concerning subacute or chronic cough in Western primary care. Our study presents epidemiological data under non non-pandemic conditions. It will be interesting to compare these data to future research results of the post-pandemic era.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Schrans ◽  
Pauline Boeckxstaens ◽  
An De Sutter ◽  
Sara Willems ◽  
Dirk Avonts ◽  
...  

BackgroundFamily practice aims to recognize the health problems and needs expressed by the person rather than only focusing on the disease. Documenting person-related information will facilitate both the understanding and delivery of person-focused care.AimTo explore if the patients’ ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) behind the reason for encounter (RFE) can be coded with the International Classification of Primary Care, version 2 (ICPC-2) and what kinds of codes are missing to be able to do so.MethodsIn total, 613 consultations were observed, and patients’ expressions of ICE were narratively recorded. These descriptions were consequently translated to ICPC codes by two researchers. Descriptions that could not be translated were qualitatively analysed in order to identify gaps in ICPC-2.ResultsIn all, 613 consultations yielded 672 ICE expressions. Within the 123 that could not be coded with ICPC-2, eight categories could be defined: concern about the duration/time frame; concern about the evolution/severity; concern of being contagious or a danger to others; patient has no concern, but others do; expects a confirmation of something; expects a solution for the symptoms without specification of what it should be; expects a specific procedure; and expects that something is not done.DiscussionAlthough many ICE can be registered with ICPC-2, adding eight new categories would capture almost all ICE.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (40) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Álvaro Damiani Zamprogno ◽  
André Filipe Lucchi Rodrigues ◽  
Lorena Camillato Sirtoli ◽  
Natália Josiele Cerqueira Checon ◽  
...  

Objective: To estimate how reliably and validly can medical students encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses using the International Classification of Primary Care, revised 2nd edition (ICPC-2-R). Methods: For every encounter they supervised during an entire semester, three family and community physician teachers entered the reasons for encounter and diagnoses in free text into a form. Two of four medical students and one teacher encoded each reason for encounter or diagnosis using the ICPC-2-R. In the beginning of the study, two three-hour workshops were held, until the teachers were confident the students were ready for the encoding. After all the reasons for encounter and the diagnoses had been independently encoded, the seven encoders resolved the definitive codes by consensus. We defined reliability as agreement between students and validity as their agreement with the definitive codes, and used Gwet’s AC1 to estimate this agreement. Results: After exclusion of encounters encoded before the last workshop, the sample consisted of 149 consecutive encounters, comprising 262 reasons for encounter and 226 diagnoses. The encoding had moderate to substantial reliability (AC1, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.767–0.843) and substantial validity (AC1, 0.864; 95% CI, 0.833–0.891). Conclusion: Medical students can encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses with the ICPC-2-R if they are adequately trained.


Autism ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 784-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kitty-Rose Foley ◽  
Allan J Pollack ◽  
Helena C Britt ◽  
Nicholas G Lennox ◽  
Julian N Trollor

This study compared the patient demographics and reasons for encounter in general practice for patients <25 years with and without an autism spectrum disorder identified as a reason for encounter and/or problem managed. The Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health programme collected information about clinical activities in Australian general practice. Each year, the programme recruited a random sample of 1000 general practitioners, each of whom collected data for 100 consecutive consultations (encounters). Encounters with patients <25 years, where at least one autism spectrum disorder was recorded as a reason for encounter and/or a problem managed (n = 579), were compared with all other encounters (n = 281,473) from April 2000 to March 2014 inclusive. Data were age–sex standardised. Patients at autism spectrum disorder encounters (compared to non-autism spectrum disorder encounters) were more likely to be younger and male. There was a dramatic rise in the number of general practitioner consultations at autism spectrum disorder encounters from 2000 to 2013. More reasons for encounter were recorded at autism spectrum disorder encounters than at non-autism spectrum disorder encounters (156.4 (95% confidence interval: 144.0–168.8) and 140.5 (95% confidence interval: 140.0–141.0), respectively). At autism spectrum disorder (vs non-autism spectrum disorder) encounters, there were more psychological, general and unspecified, and social reasons for encounter and fewer preventive and acute health reasons for encounter. People with an autism spectrum disorder have complex health care needs that require a skilled general practice workforce.


Medicine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 96 (22) ◽  
pp. e6999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motoharu Fukushi ◽  
Yukishige Ishibashi ◽  
Naoki Nago

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 806-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees van Boven ◽  
Annemarie A. Uijen ◽  
Nina van de Wiel ◽  
Sibo K. Oskam ◽  
Henk J. Schers ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document