Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Primary care. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Primary care. Mostrar todas las entradas

18 junio, 2013

Grand Challenges: Integrating Mental Health Care into the Non-Communicable Disease Agenda

  •  

  •    
Citation: Ngo VK, Rubinstein A, Ganju V, Kanellis P, Loza N, et al. (2013) Grand Challenges: Integrating Mental Health Care into the Non-Communicable Disease Agenda. PLoS Med 10(5): e1001443. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001443
Published: May 14, 2013

Summary Points

  • Non-communicable chronic diseases (NCD) and mental disorders each constitute a large portion of the worldwide health care burden, and they often occur together.
  • Collaborative care models, where NCD care and mental health care are integrated and provided in the primary care setting, are effective for patients, strengthen health care service systems, and reduce costs.
  • Using lay health workers to supplement the services provided by mental health specialists, physicians, and nurses can extend services to more patients, but raises challenges related to training and coordination.
  • Implementation of collaborative care models and scale up of successful models will be enhanced by tapping local knowledge of social, political, cultural, and health system nuances.
  • Collaborative care approaches that integrate services for NCD and mental health conditions require investments in human resources, services, and additional research.
  • This is the third in a series of five articles providing a global perspective on integrating mental health.
 Full Text
Enhanced by Zemanta

08 junio, 2013

Cribado o screening en atención primaria

Las pruebas de detección precoz, cribado o screening, suelen ser de alta utilización en la consulta diaria en todas las especialidades. Sin embargo, no todas ellas son lo suficientemente efectivas cómo para darnos un diagnóstico, o más aún, para actuar adecuadamente evitando los falsos positivos y los falsos negativos que se obtienen. Aunque éstos no son los únicos factores a tener en cuenta.
Más aún, los riesgos de sobrediagnosticar, dan lugar a estigmatización en personas sanas, con una subsecuente cascada de mayor pedidos de métodos diagnósticos, o aún tratamientos innecesarios. Sin contar en ello, la ansiedad que se genera en el paciente rotulado, y las consecuencias que esos eventuales tratamientos pueden dar lugar, ya que ningún tratamiento es inocuo.
Un excelente articulo publicado en la revista de Pediatria en Atención Primaria, escrito por Javier Gonzalez de Dios, nos dá una mejor perspectiva de los distintos factores que debemos tener en cuenta a la hora de hacer estos pedidos en forma indiscriminada.
Podemos bajar el artículo completo desde aquí.

25 abril, 2013

Primary care vs specialist sleep center management of obstructive sleep apnea and daytime sleepiness and quality of life: a randomized trial

Français : Schéma expliquant l'obstruction de ...
Français : Schéma expliquant l'obstruction de la ventilation dans le Syndrome d'apnées du sommeil (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 Chai-Coetzer CL, Antic NA, Rowland LS, et al. Primary care vs specialist sleep center management of obstructive sleep apnea and daytime sleepiness and quality of life: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013 Mar 13;309(10):997-1004. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.1823. (Original) PMID: 23483174

IMPORTANCE: Due to increasing demand for sleep services, there has been growing interest in ambulatory models of care for patients with obstructive sleep apnea. With appropriate training and simplified management tools, primary care physicians are ideally positioned to take on a greater role in diagnosis and treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and within-trial costs of a simplified model of diagnosis and care in primary care relative to that in specialist sleep centers.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: A randomized, controlled, noninferiority study involving 155 patients with obstructive sleep apnea that was treated at primary care practices (n=81) in metropolitan Adelaide, 3 rural regions of South Australia or at a university hospital sleep medicine center in Adelaide, Australia (n = 74), between September 2008 and June 2010.
INTERVENTIONS: Primary care management of obstructive sleep apnea vs usual care in a specialist sleep center; both plans included continuous positive airway pressure, mandibular advancement splints, or conservative measures only. 

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, which ranges from 0 (no daytime sleepiness) to 24 points (high level of daytime sleepiness). The noninferiority margin was -2.0. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific and general quality of life measures, obstructive sleep apnea symptoms, adherence to using continuous positive airway pressure, patient satisfaction, and health care costs.
RESULTS: There were significant improvements in ESS scores from baseline to 6 months in both groups. In the primary care group, the mean baseline score of 12.8 decreased to 7.0 at 6 months (P < .001), and in the specialist group, the score decreased from a mean of 12.5 to 7.0 (P < .001). Primary care management was noninferior to specialist management with a mean change in ESS score of 5.8 vs 5.4 (adjusted difference, -0.13; lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, -1.5; P = .43). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures between groups. Seventeen patients (21%) withdrew from the study in the primary care group vs 6 patients (8%) in the specialist group. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with obstructive sleep apnea, treatment under a primary care model compared with a specialist model did not result in worse sleepiness scores, suggesting that the 2 treatment modes may be comparable. TRIAL 
REGISTRATION anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12608000514303.

29 marzo, 2013

Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS)

National Institute for Health and Clinical Exc...
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

                         
 In advance of this, we are providing a preview of the new CKS service homepage for your information.
    
This new CKS service will upgrade the existing CKS service and will be openly accessible to users in the UK at
 www.cks.nhs.uk. The service will continue to be aimed at primary care practitioners and will contain over 300 
topics on the most common and/or significant primary care presentations for use preparing for, during and
 following on from patient consultations.
                                                       
The evidence base that supports these topics will be continuously reviewed and significant changes will lead to
 accelerated topic updates. Up to ten new topics will be introduced each year and all topics will be reviewed on a
 four year rolling cycle.
                                                                                                                                                       ;                                                                       
Some of the new topics already planned for release in 2013 are anxiety, postnatal care, and pain and bleeding in
 early pregnancy.
                                                       
 We would also encourage you to register as a NICE user and benefit from all the services offered by NICE.
 Please click on this link and complete the registration details.
                                                       
 You can also register for a My Evidence account by clicking on this link.
                                                                                                               
We will be providing more information about the new and improved CKS service from NICE over the coming
 weeks.

Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS) service commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) will be going live on 8 April 2013.                              
Enhanced by Zemanta

20 febrero, 2013

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion in children

incipiente Otitis media acuta - Hyperämie
incipiente Otitis media acuta - Hyperämie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 2012 Sep 12;9:CD009163. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009163.pub2.

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion in children

Source

Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht,Utrecht, Netherlands. alicevanzon@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is characterised by an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear behind an intact tympanic membrane, without the symptoms or signs of acute infection. In approximately one in three children with OME, however, a bacterial pathogen is identified in the middle ear fluid. In most cases, OME causes mild hearing impairment of short duration. When experienced in early life and when episodes of (bilateral) OME persist or recur, the associated hearing loss may be significant and have a negative impact on speech development and behaviour. Since most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, only children with persistent middle ear effusion and associated hearing loss potentially require treatment. Previous Cochrane reviews have focused on the effectiveness of ventilation tube insertion, adenoidectomy, autoinflation, antihistamines, decongestants, and oral and topical intranasal steroids in OME. This review focuses on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with OME.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effects of antibiotics in children up to 18 years with OME.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 22 February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with placebo, no treatment or therapy of unproven effectiveness. Our primary outcome was complete resolution of OME at two to three months. Secondary outcomes included resolution of OME at other time points, hearing, language and speech, ventilation tube insertion and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently extracted data using standardised data extraction forms and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We presented dichotomous results as risk differences as well as risk ratios, with their 95% confidence intervals. If heterogeneity was greater than 75% we did not pool data.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 23 studies (3027 children) covering a range of antibiotics, participants, outcome measures and time points of evaluation. Overall, we assessed the studies as generally being at low risk of bias.Our primary outcome was complete resolution of OME at two to three months. The differences (improvement) in the proportion of children having such resolution (risk difference (RD)) in the five individual included studies ranged from 1% (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.12; not significant) to 45% (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.65). Results from these studies could not be pooled due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity.Pooled analysis of data for complete resolution at more than six months was possible, with an increase in resolution of 13% (RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19).Pooled analysis was also possible for complete resolution at the end of treatment, with the following increases in resolution rates: 17% (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24) for treatment for 10 days to two weeks, 34% (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.50) for treatment for four weeks, 32% (RD 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.47) for treatment for three months, and 14% (RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.24) for treatment continuously for at least six months.We were unable to find evidence of a substantial improvement in hearing as a result of the use ofantibiotics for otitis media with effusion; nor did we find an effect on the rate of ventilation tube insertion. We did not identify any trials that looked at speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life. Data on the adverse effects of antibiotic treatment reported in six studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. Increases in the occurrence of adverse events varied from 3% (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; not significant) to 33% (RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.44) in the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The results of our review do not support the routine use of antibiotics for children up to 18 years with otitis media witheffusion. The largest effects of antibiotics were seen in children treated continuously for four weeks and three months. Even when clear and relevant benefits of antibiotics have been demonstrated, these must be balanced against the potential adverse effects when making treatment decisions. Immediate adverse effects of antibiotics are common and the emergence of bacterial resistance has been causally linked to the widespread use ofantibiotics for common conditions such as otitis media.
PMID:
 
22972136
 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Full Text: 

Enhanced by Zemanta