Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D A Fitzmaurice

Publications and source records attributed to D A Fitzmaurice.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

[Thromboembolism].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Does the Birmingham model of oral anticoagulation management in primary care work outside trial conditions?

The effectiveness of the Birmingham model of primary care oral anticoagulation management has previously been demonstrated within a randomised controlled trial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the Birmingham model in routine care. All patients from 12 primary care centres attending either practice-based or hospital-based anticoagulation clinics were retrospectively followed up from October 1996 to March 1998. Outcome measures were therapeutic International Normalised Ratio (INR) control, haemorrhagic and thrombotic episodes, and recall frequency; 452 patients who had two or more INR results during the follow-up period were investigated. There were no significant differences between practice-based and hospital-based populations in terms of the percentage time in range, (69% and 64% respectively). The proportion of tests in range was significantly higher in the practice-based group (61% practice-based, 57% hospital-based; P = 0.015). There was no difference between the two populations in terms of mean follow-up time (36 days in each group). There were no significant differences between groups for the number of clinical outcomes per patient. This study confirmed that, within these practices, oral anticoagulation management is safe and effective using the Birmingham model.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2000

A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To review patient information leaflets on hypertension to determine the quality of information currently available to patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A standardised systematic rating of patient information leaflets for hypertension in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A quality score per leaflet based on a pre-determined rating scale. using recognised criteria with marks allocated for content, writing style, readability and design. RESULTS: Sixty-one leaflets were received, 42 from the Internet and 19 from other sources. Leaflets could achieve a maximum of 84 points. Scores ranged from 30 to 70 for non-Internet leaflets and 28 to 67 for Internet leaflets. Leaflets produced by Boeringer Ingelheim for the British Hypertension Society and Greenlines Publishing (with a medical education grant from Knoll Ltd) scored highest overall. A detailed analysis of the non-Internet leaflets showed that few leaflets contained the full range of information considered important though most should be readable by the majority of the adult population and are written using appropriate language and typeface. CONCLUSION: High quality information is available for patients, though some leaflets fall below an adequate standard. Professionals providing advice to patients should have some knowledge of what constitutes good quality information and be critical of the resources they use. Ideally surgeries and clinics should stock a range of the best information available so that patients can chose the leaflet most appropriate to their needs.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Systematic review of near patient test evaluations in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and qualitatively synthesise the findings from all studies that have examined the performance and effect of near patient tests in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished research 1986-99. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test performance characteristics, measures of effect on clinical practice or patient outcome. RESULTS: 101 relevant publications were identified. The general quality of these papers was low, and consequently only 32 papers were assessed in detail. Although these papers gave some indication of the value of near patient testing in areas such as anticoagulation monitoring and group A beta haemolytic streptococcus testing, the research raised many more questions than it answered. Almost no reports were found of unbiased assessment of the effect of near patient tests in primary care on patient outcomes, organisational outcomes, or cost. CONCLUSIONS: Available research provides little evidence to guide the expansion of use of near patient testing in primary care. Further research is needed in areas of clinical practice where near patient tests might be most beneficial.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

A primary care evaluation of three near patient coagulometers.

AIM: To compare the reliability and relative costs of three international normalised ratio (INR) near patient tests. MATERIALS: Protime (ITC Technidyne), Coaguchek (Boehringer Mannheim), and TAS (Diagnostic Testing). METHODS: All patients attending one inner city general practice anticoagulation clinic were asked to participate, with two samples provided by patients not taking warfarin. A 5 ml sample of venous whole blood was taken from each patient and a drop immediately added to the prepared Coaguchek test strip followed by the Protime cuvette. The remainder was added to a citrated bottle. A drop of citrated blood was then placed on the TAS test card and the remainder sent to the reference laboratory for analysis. Parallel INR estimation was performed on the different near patient tests at each weekly anticoagulation clinic from July to December 1997. RESULTS: 19 patients receiving long term warfarin treatment provided 62 INR results. INR results ranged from 0.8-8.2 overall and 1.0-5.7 based on the laboratory method. Taking the laboratory method as the gold standard, 12/62 results were < 2.0 and 2/62 were > 4.5. There were no statistical or clinically significant differences between results from the three systems, although all near patient tests showed slightly higher mean readings than the laboratory, and 19-24% of tests would have resulted in different management decisions based on the machine used in comparison with the laboratory INR value. The cost of the near patient test systems varied substantially. CONCLUSIONS: All three near patient test systems are safe and efficient for producing acceptable and reproducible INR results within the therapeutic range in a primary care setting. All the systems were, however, subject to operator dependent variables at the time of blood letting. Adequate training in capillary blood sampling, specific use of the machines, and quality assurance procedures is therefore essential.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed1999

Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings.

AIM: To determine the reliability of international normalised ratio (INR) measurement in primary care by practice nurses using near patient testing (NPT), in comparison with results obtained within hospital laboratories by varied methods. METHODS: As part of an MRC funded study into primary care oral anticoagulation management, INR measurements obtained in general practice were validated against values on the same samples obtained in hospital laboratories. A prospective comparative trial was undertaken between three hospital laboratories and nine general practices. All patients attending general practice based anticoagulant clinics had parallel INR estimations performed in general practice and in a hospital laboratory. RESULTS: 405 tests were performed. Comparison between results obtained in the practices and those in the reference hospital laboratory (gold standard), which used the same method of testing for INR, showed a correlation coefficient of 0.96. Correlation coefficients comparing the results with the various standard laboratory techniques ranged from 0.86 to 0.92. It was estimated that up to 53% of tests would have resulted in clinically significant differences (change in warfarin dose) depending upon the site and method of testing. The practice derived results showed a positive bias ranging from 0.28 to 1.55, depending upon the site and method of testing. CONCLUSIONS: No technical problems associated with INR testing within primary care were uncovered. Discrepant INR results are as problematic in hospital settings as they are in primary care. These data highlight the failings of the INR to standardise when different techniques and reagents are used, an issue which needs to be resolved. For primary care to become more involved in therapeutic oral anticoagulation monitoring, close links are needed between hospital laboratories and practices, particularly with regard to training and quality assurance.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed1999

A novel method of guideline development for the diagnosis and management of mild to moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: There are large numbers of clinical guidelines available covering many clinical areas. However, the variable quality of their content has meant that doctors may have been offered advice that has been poorly researched or is of a conflicting nature. It has been shown that local involvement in guideline development increases the likelihood of their use. AIM: To develop a guideline to be used by general practitioners in six practices in Birmingham from existing evidence-based guidelines. METHOD: Recommendations from the four most cited international hypertension guidelines, and the more recently published New Zealand guidelines, were divided into subject areas and tabulated to facilitate direct comparison. Where there was complete or majority (> or = 3/5) agreement, the recommendation was taken as acceptable for inclusion in the new guideline. Where there was disagreement (< or = 2/5), recommendations were based on the best available evidence following a further MEDLINE literature search and critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each recommendation was accompanied by a grade of evidence (A-D), as defined by the Canadian Hypertension Society, and an 'action required' statement of either 'must', 'should', or 'could', based on the Eli-Lilly National Clinical Audit Centre Hypertension Audit criteria. The recommendations were summarized into a guideline algorithm and a supporting document. The final format of both parts of the guideline was decided after consultation with the practice teams. The practices individually decided on methods of data collection. RESULTS: The guideline was presented as a double-sided, A4 laminated sheet and an A4 bound supporting document containing a synthesis of the original guidelines in tabular form, a table of the resulting recommendations, and appendices of current literature reviews on areas of disagreement. The content of the final Birmingham Clinical Effectiveness Group (BCEG) guideline differed minimally from any of the original guidelines. CONCLUSION: The main strength of this method of guideline development may lie, not in the actual content of the resulting guideline, but in the strength of ownership felt by the BCEG and the practices following its development. While the full process is unlikely to be possible for general practitioners working outside an academic environment, the techniques used could provide a framework for practitioners to adapt national and international guidelines for use at a local level.

Decision Trees↗