PubMed · 15810712
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Huguier. [Complementary examinations].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15810712/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of medical diagnosis in the sick leave certificate. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Castelldefels Primary Care Centre, Barcelona, Spain. MEASUREMENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: 205 sick leave episodes of patients reported as non-occupational diseases and injuries were analyzed. The diagnosis of the sick leave certificate was checked against the clinical report carried out by the same physician who made out the sick leave certificate. To assess the quality of medical diagnosis, sensitivity, positive predictive value and the percentage of positive agreement were calculated. The variability of these indicators was also assessed according to the duration of the sick leave episode. RESULTS: Simple agreement between the diagnoses of the sick leave certificate and the clinical report was 92%. The sensitivity of the sick leave certificate in relation to the clinical report by diagnostic group ranged from 75% to 97%; positive predictive value, from 81% to 100%; and the percentage of positive agreement, from 86% to 97%. Short-term sick leave episodes (< or =15 days) had lower values than long-term sick leave (>15 days). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that the quality of diagnosis on the sick leave certificate is high. The availability of more medical information about the reasons for the sick leave episode does not modify the quality of the diagnosis substantially.
BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance that recommends that all dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, irrespective of age, that relapse after one month's proton pump inhibitor, should be offered test and treat for Helicobacter pylori. OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of primary care about introducing the helicobacter test and treat NICE dyspepsia guidance. METHODS: In 15 urban and rural general practices in Central England, primary health care staff involved in the management of dyspepsia took part in qualitative focus groups to discuss the draft NICE guidance and how it might be implemented. RESULTS: Practices expressed concern that test and treat may not be cost-effective in younger patients and that they may miss malignancy, in older patients and in patients who relapse after triple treatment, without a further helicobacter test or endoscopy. The greatest practical barriers to test and treat were the considerable impact on nurses' and doctors' time to explain, undertake tests and report results to patients, and practice budgets from urea breath test and triple treatment costs. Staff preferred stool tests to breath tests, as they impacted less on practice budget and time. GPs did not favour prescribing the three components of the triple treatment separately. CONCLUSIONS: GPs will need reassurance that test and treat will not lead to missed malignancies. The financial costs and staffing implications of NICE dyspepsia guidance will need to be discussed locally by Primary Care Trusts, microbiology laboratories, gastroenterologists and pharmacy advisors and implemented with local guidance, increased communication and education.