Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “GENERAL PRACTICE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Lung function measurement in general practice. General practice measurements compared with laboratory measurements during the DIMCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung function measurement in the general practice setting (GPS) is of growing importance. OBJECTIVE.:The aim of this study was to compare results from a lung function laboratory (LFL) with those in a GPS. METHODS: Comparisons were made for decline calculated from GPS and LFL measurements and intra-individual paired measurements. Test characteristics of the spirometer used in the GPS were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean decline in lung function was: -0.037 l/year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.202 to 0.129] from LFL data and -0.027 l/year (95% CI -0.242 to 0.188) from GPS data. The mean intra-individual difference was -0.0025 l (95% CI -0.493 to 0.488 l). The test characteristics of the spirometer used in GPS did not meet all of the American Thoracic Society guidelines; in particular, the random error was too large. The difference in assessments between measurement in LFL and GPS were such that misclassification might occur if slopes were calculated. CONCLUSIONS. :Repeated measurement in this study showed that GPS measurements are not interchangeable with LFL measurements. Therefore, one has to be cautious when interchanging lung function data from an LFL and a GPS.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Bias in patient assessments of general practice: general practice assessment survey scores in surgery and postal responders.

Patient-based measures of the quality of primary care are increasingly important. However, their effective use requires bias to be minimised. Scores on the General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS) differ according to whether patients are surveyed in the surgery or by post. It is not clear whether these differences relate to the mode of administration or to the types of patients who complete the scale in postal and surgery samples. Regression indicates that the bias reflects both effects and should be considered when GPAS scores are being interpreted.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of ketoprofen, piroxicam, and diclofenac gels in the treatment of acute soft-tissue injury in general practice. General Practice Study Group.

The efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of topical applications of ketoprofen gel (2.5% w/w), piroxicam gel (0.5% w/w), and diclofenac gel (1% w/w), when administered three times daily for 5 days, in the treatment of acute (within 48 hours) soft-tissue injury, were compared in an open-label, randomized, multicenter, general practice study. Of 1575 patients recruited, 1048 received ketoprofen gel (525 used the gel with a dose-measuring device), 263 received piroxicam gel, and 264 received diclofenac gel. Ketoprofen gel was significantly superior to piroxicam gel in terms of global assessment of treatment response (improvement in 74% vs 65% of patients) and the severity of the injury (38% vs 26% "greatly improved") and in improvements in stiffness (71% vs 64%), restriction of mobility (34% vs 22%), and pain on pressure (81% vs 78%) and movement (83% vs 77%). Ketoprofen gel also compared favorably with diclofenac gel, with a larger proportion of patients assessing a great improvement in the injury (38% vs 30%). Patient acceptability of ketoprofen gel was significantly better than piroxicam gel. More patients noted a significant cooling effect with ketoprofen gel (71%) than with either piroxicam gel (49%) or diclofenac gel (60%). Ketoprofen gel also showed excellent tolerability. In conclusion, ketoprofen gel may offer benefits over established therapies for the treatment of acute soft-tissue injury.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1999

Nursing's contribution to general practice: general practitioners' and practice nurses' views.

This study was instigated by the paucity of knowledge relating to the work of nurses employed by general practitioners in Australia and the phenomenal development of the practice nurse role in the United Kingdom. A mailed survey of general practitioners and practice nurses within one Division of General Practice in South-East Queensland, sought, among other things, their views about the current and potential contribution of nursing to general practice. Eighty-four out of 164 (51%) general practitioners and 37 out of 67 (55%) practice nurses responded to the survey. Results indicated that both general practitioners and practice nurses appreciated the value of nursing services in general practice and would sanction the employment of more nurses especially for the purpose of preventive care. The majority of nurses were agreeable to the notion that the nurse's role could, and should, be expanded to include autonomous functioning while most of the doctors were amenable to some extension of nursing practice but reticent or opposed to any independent interventions.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2000

List patient system: straitjacket or a tool for developing general practice? General practitioners' experiences from a pilot project in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate attitudes and experiences among general practitioners (GPs) taking part in an experiment with a list patient system in four municipalities in Norway. DESIGN: A questionnaire distributed to all 160 GPs in the four municipalities after 3 years' trial of the system. SETTING: Primary health care in Norway. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The opinions of physicians on a list patient system after 3 years of trial. RESULTS: Most of the physicians held that the list patient system imposed more obligations than they were used to. However, the majority also held that the system enhanced preconditions for doing a good professional job; 68% wanted the system on a permanent basis, while 14% rejected it. CONCLUSION: Positive aspects outweigh negative aspects in the attitude of GPs to a list patient system.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗