Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Glyn Elwyn

Publications and source records attributed to Glyn Elwyn.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Testing a European set of indicators for the evaluation of the management of primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Effective practice management is an important prerequisite for offering good clinical care. Internationally valid, reliable and feasible indicators and instruments are needed to describe and compare the management of primary care practices in Europe. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes development and evaluation of the European Practice Assessment instrument and indicators (Engels Y, Campbell S, Dautzenberg M et al. Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe. Fam Pract 2005; 22(2): 215-22). METHODS: The study design was a validation and feasibility study set in 273 general practices in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK. Use was made of a set of 62 valid quality indicators derived previously from an international Delphi procedure. The EPA instrument, based on this set of indicators, was used to collect data in the 273 practices. This instrument consists of self-completed questionnaires for doctors, staff managers and patients. In addition, there is an interview schedule for use by an outreach visitor, to be held with the lead GP or manager, and a visitor checklist. The instrument was analysed using expert review by the project partners, factor and reliability analyses, ANOVA analyses and by determining intraclass correlations. RESULTS: Fifty-seven indicators were found to be valid, feasible, reliable and discriminative in all participating countries. The instrument was able to determine differences in practice management within and between countries. All (but one) practices completed the assessment procedure. The data collection method appeared to be feasible, although some aspects can be improved. CONCLUSION: The EPA instrument provides feedback to practices that facilitates quality improvement and can compare primary care practices on a national and an international level.

Europe↗
PubMed2005

PSA testing for prostate cancer: an online survey of the views and reported practice of General Practitioners in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The role of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing in the early detection of prostate cancer is controversial. Current UK policy stipulates that any man who wishes to have a PSA test should have access to the test, provided he has been given full information about the benefits and limitations of testing. This study aimed to determine UK GPs' current reported practice regarding PSA testing, and their views towards informed decision-making and PSA testing. METHOD: Online questionnaire survey, with a sample of 421 GPs randomly selected from a database of GPs across the UK. RESULTS: 95% (400/421) of GPs responded. 76% of GPs reported having performed a PSA test for an asymptomatic man at least once in the previous three months, with 13% reported having tested more than five men in this period. A majority of GPs reported they would do a PSA test for men presenting with a family history and requesting a test, for asymptomatic men requesting a test and also for men presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. Reported testing rates were highest for men with a family history. Amongst men with lower urinary tract symptoms and men with no symptoms, reported testing rates were significantly higher for older than younger men. The majority of GPs expressed support for the current policy (67%), and favoured both the general practitioner and the man being involved in the decision making process (83%). 90% of GPs indicated that they would discuss the benefits and limitation of testing with the man, with most (61%) preferring to ask the man to make a further appointment if he decides to be tested. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that PSA testing in asymptomatic men is a regular occurrence in the UK, and that there is general support from GPs for the current policy of making PSA tests available to 'informed' men who are concerned about prostate cancer. While most GPs indicated they would discuss the benefits and limitations prior to PSA testing, and most GPs favoured a shared approach to decision making, it is not known to what extent men are actually being informed. Research is needed to evaluate the most effective approach to assisting men in making an informed decision about whether or not to have a PSA test.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Identifying future models for delivering genetic services: a nominal group study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To enable primary care medical practitioners to generate a range of possible service delivery models for genetic counselling services and critically assess their suitability. METHODS: Modified nominal group technique using in primary care professional development workshops. RESULTS: 37 general practitioners in Wales, United Kingdom too part in the nominal group process. The practitioners who attended did not believe current systems were sufficient to meet anticipated demand for genetic services. A wide range of different service models was proposed, although no single option emerged as a clear preference. No argument was put forward for genetic assessment and counselling being central to family practice, neither was there a voice for the view that the family doctor should become skilled at advising patients about predictive genetic testing and be able to counsel patients about the wider implications of genetic testing for patients and their family members, even for areas such as common cancers. Nevertheless, all the preferred models put a high priority on providing the service in the community, and often co-located in primary care, by clinicians who had developed expertise. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a wider debate about how healthcare systems address individual concerns about genetic concerns and risk, especially given the increasing commercial marketing of genetic tests.

Family Practice↗
PubMed2005

Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations.

A man's decision to have a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should be an informed one. We undertook a systematic review to identify and appraise PSA decision aids and evaluations. We searched 15 electronic databases and hand-searched key journals. We also contacted key authors and organisations. All decision aids and evaluations that discussed PSA were included, with meta-analyses performed on two outcomes from the evaluations: PSA testing and patient knowledge of PSA and related issues. Seven decision aids and 11 evaluations were included. The meta-analysis showed a significantly reduced probability in PSA testing after a decision aid: -3.5% (95% confidence interval: 0.0 to 7.2%; P = 0.050). There were significant improvements in knowledge within 2 weeks after a decision aid: 19.5% (95% confidence interval: 14.2 to 24.8%; P < 0.001). The effect on knowledge was less pronounced within 12-18 months after a decision aid: 3.4% (95% confidence interval: -0.7 to 7.4%; P = 0.10). PSA decision aids improve knowledge about PSA testing, at least in the short term. Men given these decision aids seem to be less likely to have the PSA test.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2005

Organizational assessment in general practice: a systematic review and implications for quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement of organizational aspects in general practice is receiving increasing attention. In particular, the impact of effective organization on preventative care has been recognized. Organizational assessments are typically used as part of professionally led accreditation schemes where there is a tension between externally led quality assurance and internally led quality improvement. The aim of this article is to inform the debate by reviewing the international-peer-reviewed literature on organizational assessments used in general practice settings. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: The literature was searched for articles relating to organizational assessment. Titles and abstracts were examined by two independent reviewers and relevant articles obtained. Bibliographies were examined for follow-up references. Data were extracted on the development and use of assessment methods. RESULTS: Thirteen papers describing five organizational assessment instruments were included for detailed appraisal. CONCLUSION: This review discovered a developing field containing different approaches to the measurement of organizational aspects of general practice. Whilst professionally led accreditation is well-developed and dependent on externally led quality assurance, approaches to internally led quality improvement are less well-developed. There is a need for organizational assessment tools designed for the purpose of stimulating internal development.

Family Practice↗
PubMed2005

The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of a revised scale, named 'observing patient involvement in decision making' (OPTION), by analysing its reapplication to a sample of routine primary care consultations. The OPTION instrument assesses to what degree clinicians involve patients in decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional assessment of medical interaction by two calibrated raters. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one general practitioners provided 186 consultations for assessment. MEASUREMENTS: Observational score using the OPTION instrument. RESULTS: Compared with the first version of the OPTION scale, the revised scale that uses a magnitude instead of an attitude scale, when applied to the same data set, resulted in improvement in the scale's reliability and to lower scores for the levels of involvement achieved by the practitioners. Factor analysis confirms that it is acceptable to regard the scale as a single construct. Although there is moderate variability when raters are assessed on an item by item basis, the agreements between raters at the level of the overall OPTION score is high (the intraclass correlation coefficient scores for total OPTION score was 0.77), a level that is acceptable for the evaluation of a set of consultations per practitioner (e.g. between 5 and 10 consultations), where aggregate scores would be used for determining overall performance. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that OPTION is sufficiently reliable to be used for formal assessment at the level of the whole instrument (all 12 items).

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2005

Voices of the terminally ill: uncovering the meaning of desire for euthanasia.

This study aimed to better understand the meaning of desire for euthanasia. An hermeneutic approach was undertaken using a purposively selected sample of advanced cancer patients who desired euthanasia while receiving palliative care. Unstructured interviews were conducted with six participants, which were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed. This approach allowed in-depth exploration and interpretation of the patients' lived experience. The findings illustrated a timeline from previous wellness to approaching death with five major themes: (1) reality, (2) perception, (3) anticipation, (4) desire and (5) holding environment. The desire for euthanasia is not confined to physical or psychosocial concerns relating to advanced cancer, but incorporates hidden existential yearnings for connectedness, care and respect, understood within the context of the patients' lived experience. Euthanasia requests cannot be taken at face value but require in-depth exploration of their covert meaning, in order to ensure that the patients' needs are being addressed adequately.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Important barriers to the wider implementation of shared decision making remain. The experiences of professionals who are skilled in this approach may identify how to overcome these barriers. AIMS: To identify the experiences and views of professionals skilled in shared decision making and risk communication, exploring the opportunities and challenges for implementation. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study. SETTING: Gwent Health Authority. METHOD: Exit interviews using focus group methodology with 20 GPs who had been in practice between 1 and 10 years, and participated in an explanatory trial lasting 6 months. The trial interventions comprised training in shared decision-making skills and the use of risk communication materials. The doctors consulted with up to 48 patients each (mean = 40, half of them audiotaped) for the study. RESULTS: The GPs indicated positive attitudes towards involving patients and described positive effects on their consultations. However, the frequency of applying the new skills and tools was limited outside the trial. Doctors were selective about when they felt greater patient involvement was appropriate and feasible, rather than seeking to apply the approaches to the majority of consultations. They felt they often responded to consumer preferences for low levels of involvement in decision making. Time limitations were important in not implementing the approach more widely. CONCLUSION: The promotion of 'patient involvement' appears likely to continue. Professionals appear receptive to this, and willing to acquire the relevant skills. Strategies for wider implementation of patient involvement could address how consultations are scheduled in primary care, and raise consumers' expectations or desires for involvement.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

Using a 'peer assessment questionnaire' in primary medical care.

BACKGROUND: Periodic assessment of clinician performance or 'revalidation' is being actively considered to reassure the public that doctors are 'up to date and fit to practice'. There is, therefore, increasing interest in how to assess individual clinician performance in a valid and reliable way. The use of peer assessment questionnaires is one of the methods being considered and investigated by the General Medical Council in the UK. AIM: To test the feasibility of using a peer assessment questionnaire in a primary care setting, and consider the related issues of validity and reliability and compare the results to previous studies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in a volunteer sample. SETTING: General practice in the UK. METHOD: GPs who volunteered to take part in an evaluation of a pilot appraisal implementation scheme were recruited by appraisers. These volunteers (GP subjects) chose 15 colleagues to complete a 'peer assessment' questionnaire that asked peers to make judgements about their clinical skills and other characteristics, such as 'compassion', 'integrity' and 'responsibility'. RESULTS: Of the 207 practitioners that agreed to be appraised, 113 completed the optional task of implementing the peer questionnaire. Of the 1271 raters, 1189 provided data about their roles and 33.6% of these were GPs. The data revealed significant levels of items where peers were 'unable to evaluate' the issues posed in the questionnaire (ranging from 13.7-1.8%). These rates differed from those obtained in studies based in the US where mean scores were slightly higher. Although the overall results are broadly similar to those previously obtained, there are sufficient differences to suggest that there are contextual issues influencing the interpretation of the items and therefore the scoring process. CONCLUSION: The volunteer sample in this study found no major obstacles to the implementation of the peer assessment questionnaire. While it is not possible to generalise from this selected volunteer sample, the use of peer assessment questionnaires appears feasible and may be acceptable to clinical practitioners. However, concern remains about the validity of such instruments and that their development did not fully consider issues of procedural justice or whether the overall purpose of the tools was to be formative, summative, or both.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians.

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing instruments for rating peers (professional colleagues) in medical practice and to evaluate them in terms of how they have been developed, their validity and reliability, and their appropriateness for use in clinical settings, including primary care. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search techniques, snowball sampling, and correspondence with specialists. STUDY SELECTION: The peer assessment instruments identified were evaluated in terms of how they were developed and to what extent, if relevant, their psychometric properties had been determined. RESULTS: A search of six electronic databases identified 4566 possible articles. After appraisal of the abstracts and in depth assessment of 42 articles, three rating scales fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were fully appraised. The three instruments did not meet established standards of instrument development, as no reference was made to a theoretical framework and the published psychometric data omitted essential work on construct and criterion validity. Rater training was absent, and guidance consisted of short written instructions. Two instruments were developed for a hospital setting in the United States and one for a primary care setting in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The instruments developed to date for physicians to evaluate characteristics of colleagues need further assessment of validity before their widespread use is merited.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Involving patients in decision making and communicating risk: a longitudinal evaluation of doctors' attitudes and confidence during a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Important barriers to the wider implementation of shared decision making (SDM) and risk communication in practice remain. The attitudes of professionals undergoing training in these approaches may inform how to overcome these barriers, but there are few such data yet available. AIM: To identify the attitudes of professionals during participation in a large practice-based intervention study with substantial individual exposure to SDM and risk communication, and to assess their confidence with these approaches and reported frequency of implementing them. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty general practitioners (GPs) who had been in practice between 1 and 10 years, and participated in an explanatory trial lasting 6 months. The trial interventions comprised training in SDM skills and the use of risk communication materials. The doctors consulted with up to 48 patients each (mean = 40, half of them audio-taped) for the study. METHODS: Questionnaire assessments before and after each training stage. RESULTS: The GPs indicated positive attitudes towards involving patients and towards the training interventions. They indicated that the risk information packs were applicable but had used them only occasionally with patients outside the trial. No statistically significant changes were associated with the specific interventions in terms of doctors' confidence in discussing risk information after the risk communication intervention, or attitudes to patient involvement after the SDM intervention. Most attitudes and confidence ratings showed positive changes during the course of the trial as a cohort effect. Such positive changes were associated with female doctors more than male doctors, but not with MRCGP (postgraduate vocational) qualification. Time constraints remained important throughout the study in not implementing the approach more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals appear receptive to patient involvement, and willing to acquire the relevant skills. SDM and risk communication training did not appear to contribute differentially to this. Practical barriers such as time constraints should probably be addressed with greater priority than the precise content of training or continuing professional development initiatives if 'involvement' is to become a commoner experience for patients in primary care.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

Resource effects of training general practitioners in risk communication skills and shared decision making competences.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Involving patients more in decisions about their own care requires doctors to be trained in effective ways of communicating information and in developing competences to negotiate levels of patient involvement which are most appropriate for each case. The aim of this study was to determine the cost of such training and identify which service resource variables are subsequently affected. METHODS: An explanatory cluster randomized crossover trial was carried out which involved training general practitioners (GPs) in the use of risk communication (RC) tools, shared decision making (SDM) competences or both. Continuing care by GPs of patients with one of four chronic conditions (menopausal symptoms, menorrhagia, atrial fibrillation, prostatism) was reviewed before and after training. Cost of training was assessed by prospective monitoring of resources used. Data on prescribing, referrals and investigations were collected via questionnaires to participating practitioners. Data on follow-up GP consultations were extracted from medical records. Three two-level logistic models were performed to investigate the probability of training having an effect on prescribing, referrals and investigations ordered at the review consultation. RESULTS: Training cost pound 1218 per practitioner which increased the cost of a consultation by pound 2.89. Training in SDM or combined with RC significantly affected the probability of a prescription being issued to women with menopausal symptoms and menorrhagia (although RC on its own had no effect) but did not significantly affect prescribing for patients with prostatism or atrial fibrillation. It did not significantly affect the probability of investigations, referrals or follow-up GP visits for any of the conditions. CONCLUSION: Unless training has a major influence on consultation length, it is unlikely to have any major impacts on cost.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2004

Arriving at the postmodern medical consultation.

The analysis of the medical consultation is characterised by mainly prescriptive attempts to recommend 'best practice'. As the role of the individual in society has gained prominence, the power relationships in medical practice have had to change to reflect the increasing recognition of autonomy and self-determination. Medical discourse is at a junction, having to relinquish authoritarianism and grapple with the concept of sharing information and decisions in an area where complex and uncertain data exist, albeit often without full disclosure. The writing of Foucault and Lyotard and the concept of postmodernism fit well with the idea that the consultation between doctors and patients is increasingly becoming a contested space that occupies multiple voices, such as that of the media, the pharmaceutical industry, government-led guidelines and that of the profession. Creating the circumstances and the means for creating an effective dialogue in the postmodern consultation is the prime task for physicians.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2004

The prevention of type 2 diabetes: general practitioner and practice nurse opinions.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of type 2 diabetes is now possible with lifestyle or pharmacological interventions in people who are at risk. Primary care would seem to be the legitimate setting for this to take place. AIM: To explore the views of general practitioners and practice nurses about the detection and management of people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study. SETTING: One local health board area in Wales. METHOD: General practitioners and practice nurses participated in multi-professional focus groups, and opinions of participants were analysed into themes and sub-themes according to focus group content analysis methodology to search for 'markers of text'. RESULTS: Participants from 21 practices were involved. Participants' opinions on the detection and management of individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes were polarised into those who considered these activities inappropriate for primary care and those who were already engaged in the detection, management and follow-up of these individuals. For the former, existing workload, the questionable role of primary care as a 'screening service', lack of resources, and conflict and concern about increasing specialisation were given as justification. Those already engaged in these activities emphasised their importance but were also concerned with the lack of available resources. Other concerns were the perceived low motivation of patients to modify their lifestyle and the unnecessary medicalisation of the precursor conditions of impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia. The prevention of type 2 diabetes was seen as largely the responsibility of other agencies such as health promotion and education. CONCLUSION: The often strongly held views about this topic are at least partly influenced by current pressures on primary care. To make the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes a reality, either practitioners need to be motivated and resourced to carry out preventive strategies or alternative methods must be identified.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗