Objectives: Medical specialist physicians may act as either consultants or co-managers for patients managed in primary care settings. We assessed whether the type of specialist involvement affected ...emergency department (ED) use for patients with chronic diseases.
Objective: Specialist physicians may act either as consultants or co-managers for patients with chronic diseases along with their primary healthcare (PHC) physician. We assessed factors associated ...with specialist involvement.
Methods: We used questionnaire and administrative data to measure co-management and patient and PHC practice characteristics in 702 primary care patients with common chronic diseases. Analysis included multilevel logistic regressions.
Results: In all, 27% of the participants were co-managed. Persons with more severe chronic diseases and lower health-related quality of life were more likely to be co-managed. Persons who were older, had a lower socioeconomic status, resided in rural regions and who were followed in a PHC practice with an advanced practice nurse were less likely to be co-managed.
Discussion: Co-management of patients with chronic diseases by a specialist is associated with higher clinical needs but demonstrates social inequalities. PHC practices more adapted to chronic care may help optimize specialist resources utilization.
Abstract Background It has been suggested that increased fatigue of neck muscles could be related to neck pain. However, studies on the matter present contradicting results which could be explained ...by the different test positions used. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of test position on muscle fatigue of neck flexor and extensor muscles in healthy controls. Methods Twenty-five women without neck pain sustained neck flexion and neck extension isometric contractions at 25% and 75% of their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in two test positions: sitting and supine lying. Using surface electromyography, the change over time of the median frequency of the power spectrum (MDF slope) of the myoelectric signal of the sternocleidomastoid and splenius capitis muscles was measured and compared between both positions. Results At 75% MVC, splenius capitis muscles presented higher fatigue in lying compared to sitting, while sternocleidomastoid demonstrated no difference between positions. No statistically significant effect of test position was found at 25% MVC for both sternocleidomastoid and splenius capitis muscles as they generally did not present myoelectric manifestations of fatigue. Conclusion These results underline the need to standardise the test position when investigating neck muscle fatigue, especially for neck extensors at high loads.
To develop norms for the time to execute different versions of the finger-to-nose test (FNT) and to determine the effects of different testing procedures on performance in people aged 15 to 34 years.
...Cross-sectional.
Research center.
Healthy subjects (149 men, 148 women; age range, 15-34 y) participated, and 36 men and 36 women were included in each of the 4 age categories studied (15-19 y, 20-24 y, 25-29 y, 30-34 y). Participants performed, in random order, 5 forms of the test in 2 positions (sitting, supine) with the right and left upper limbs (ULs).
Not applicable.
Time (in seconds) to complete 5 cycles of movement.
Test version and side of UL were found to affect performances; right-sided performances were faster than left-sided. Performances did not vary significantly (P>.001) with sex or among age categories; therefore, the results are presented for the group. Mean performances varied from 3.44 to 4.29 seconds. Subsequent analysis of variance (with data for each UL) showed main effects for testing position (sitting > lying) and eye condition (eyes open > eyes closed). Versions were strongly interrelated (.85<r<.98).
Norms for the time to execute different FNT versions were developed for both ULs for healthy people ages 15 to 34 years.
Background: Medical specialist physicians can be involved either as comanagers (responsible for follow-up of patients) or consultants (provide advice/specialized interventions) in the care of ...patients with chronic diseases (CDs) managed in a primary health care (PHC) setting. Evidences concerning determinants and impact of type of specialist involvement are currently lacking, in particular the influence of comorbidity and how best to measure this factor. Objectives: The objectives were 1) to determine clinical, patient and PHC organizational characteristics associated with type of specialist involvement in patients with CDs; 2) to assess whether type of specialist involvement is associated with emergency department (ED) use and; 3) to identify methods for selecting a comorbidity index for specialist services research. Methods: 709 adults (65 +/- 11 years) with diabetes, heart failure, arthritis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited in 33 PHC practices. Standardized surveys were used to measure patient (gender, age, education, income, comorbidity, quality of life) and practice characteristics (model, remuneration mode, resources, role of nurse). Information on specialist services and ED use was procured from the Quebec physician claims database. We used multivariate logistic regression to 1) model variables associated with being comanaged and 2) compare ED use among persons with different types of specialist involvement. We conducted two systematic reviews: 1) review articles on comorbidity indices to identify proposed selection procedures and 2) studies on specialist services utilization to identify selection processes actually used. Results: One third of our sample saw a specialist; the majority (62%) was as a comanager. Comanagement was associated with higher disease severity, younger age, higher education level and income and primary care management in practices without a nurse in advanced practice role. There was no difference in rates of ED use over one year between patients with or without specialist involvement, either as a comanager (adjusted OR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.61-1.85) or as a consultant (adjusted OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.63-1.50). Quantity of comorbidity was not associated with either comanagement or impact of specialist involvement on ED use. Our systematic review revealed no standardized selection process of a comorbidity index. However, 10 distinct criteria related to accuracy and applicability of a measurement scale or validity of reported studies were compiled. Studies on specialist services utilization mostly used the Charlson comorbidity index, but none justified their choice. Conclusion: Specialist support in the management of patients with CDs and comorbidity should be provided on a consultant basis. The PHC practice model with a nurse in an advanced practice role may reduce the need for specialist comanagement. When adjusting for comorbidity, researchers should use a structured process to select the appropriate index based on standard criteria such as validity and applicability. Indices considering severity of comorbidities may be more useful than sole disease count in specialist services research. Keywords: specialty care, chronic care, comorbidity, organizational models, collaborative/interdisciplinary care, physician utilization, risk adjustment, multimorbidity.
Contexte : Les médecins spécialistes peuvent participer aux soins ambulatoires des personnes atteintes de maladies chroniques (MCs) et comorbidité comme co-gestionnaire ou consultant selon qu’ils ...sont responsables ou non du suivi du patient. Il y a un manque d’évidences sur les déterminants et l’impact du type d’implication du médecin spécialiste, ainsi que sur la façon optimale de mesurer la comorbidité pour recueillir ces évidences.
Objectifs : 1) déterminer chez les patients atteints de MCs les facteurs associés à la cogestion en spécialité, dont les caractéristiques des organisations de première ligne et la comorbidité; 2) évaluer si le type d’implication du spécialiste influence le recours à l’urgence; 3) identifier et critiquer les méthodes de sélection d’un indice de comorbidité pour la recherche sur l’implication des spécialistes dans le suivi des patients.
Méthodologie : 709 adultes (65 +/- 11 ans) atteints de diabète, d’arthrite, de maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique ou d’insuffisance cardiaque furent recrutés dans 33 cliniques de première ligne. Des enquêtes standardisées ont permis de mesurer les caractéristiques des patients (sociodémographiques, comorbidité et qualité de vie) et des cliniques (modèle, ressources). L’utilisation des services de spécialistes et de l’urgence fut mesurée avec une base de données médico-administratives. Des régressions logistiques multivariées furent utilisées pour modéliser les variables associées à la cogestion et comparer le recours à l’urgence selon le type d’implication du spécialiste. Une revue systématique des études sur l’utilisation des services de spécialistes, ainsi que des revues sur les indices de comorbidité fut réalisée pour identifier les méthodes de sélection d’un indice de comorbidité utilisées et recommandées.
Résultats : Le tiers des sujets a utilisé les services de spécialistes, dont 62% pour de la cogestion. La cogestion était associée avec une augmentation de la gravité de la maladie, du niveau d’éducation et du revenu. La cogestion diminuait avec l’âge et la réception de soins dans les cliniques avec infirmière ayant un rôle innovateur. Le recours à l’urgence n’était pas influencé par l’implication du spécialiste, en tant que co-gestionnaire (OR ajusté = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.61-1.85) ou consultant (OR ajusté = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.63-1.50). Le nombre de comorbidités n’était pas associé avec la cogestion, ni l’impact du spécialiste sur le recours à l’urgence. Les revues systématiques ont révélé qu’il n’y avait pas standardisation des procédures recommandées pour sélectionner un indice de comorbidité, mais que 10 critères concernant principalement la justesse et l’applicabilité des instruments de mesure pouvaient être utilisés. Les études sur l’utilisation des services de spécialistes utilisent majoritairement l’indice de Charlson, mais n’en expliquent pas les raisons.
Conclusion : L’implication du spécialiste dans le suivi des patients atteints de MCs et de comorbidité pourrait se faire essentiellement à titre de consultant plutôt que de co-gestionnaire. Les organisations avec infirmières ayant un rôle innovateur pourraient réduire le besoin pour la cogestion en spécialité. Une méthode structurée, basée sur des critères standardisés devrait être utilisée pour sélectionner l’indice de comorbidité le plus approprié en recherche sur les services de spécialistes. Les indices incluant la gravité des comorbidités seraient les plus pertinents à utiliser.
Background: Medical specialist physicians can be involved either as comanagers (responsible for follow-up of patients) or consultants (provide advice/specialized interventions) in the care of patients with chronic diseases (CDs) managed in a primary health care (PHC) setting. Evidences concerning determinants and impact of type of specialist involvement are currently lacking, in particular the influence of comorbidity and how best to measure this factor.
Objectives: The objectives were 1) to determine clinical, patient and PHC organizational characteristics associated with type of specialist involvement in patients with CDs; 2) to assess whether type of specialist involvement is associated with emergency department (ED) use and; 3) to identify methods for selecting a comorbidity index for specialist services research.
Methods: 709 adults (65 +/- 11 years) with diabetes, heart failure, arthritis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited in 33 PHC practices. Standardized surveys were used to measure patient (gender, age, education, income, comorbidity, quality of life) and practice characteristics (model, remuneration mode, resources, role of nurse). Information on specialist services and ED use was procured from the Quebec physician claims database. We used multivariate logistic regression to 1) model variables associated with being comanaged and 2) compare ED use among persons with different types of specialist involvement. We conducted two systematic reviews: 1) review articles on comorbidity indices to identify proposed selection procedures and 2) studies on specialist services utilization to identify selection processes actually used.
Results: One third of our sample saw a specialist; the majority (62%) was as a comanager. Comanagement was associated with higher disease severity, younger age, higher education level and income and primary care management in practices without a nurse in advanced practice role. There was no difference in rates of ED use over one year between patients with or without specialist involvement, either as a comanager (adjusted OR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.61-1.85) or as a consultant (adjusted OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.63-1.50). Quantity of comorbidity was not associated with either comanagement or impact of specialist involvement on ED use. Our systematic review revealed no standardized selection process of a comorbidity index. However, 10 distinct criteria related to accuracy and applicability of a measurement scale or validity of reported studies were compiled. Studies on specialist services utilization mostly used the Charlson comorbidity index, but none justified their choice.
Conclusion: Specialist support in the management of patients with CDs and comorbidity should be provided on a consultant basis. The PHC practice model with a nurse in an advanced practice role may reduce the need for specialist comanagement. When adjusting for comorbidity, researchers should use a structured process to select the appropriate index based on standard criteria such as validity and applicability. Indices considering severity of comorbidities may be more useful than sole disease count in specialist services research.
PDF
