Репозиторий Университета

Background: Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care. Methods: We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Results: The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles. High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary. The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded. It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses.

© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley  &  Sons Ltd. Aim: To investigate determinants of change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at 6 months after initiating uninterrupted second-line glucose-lowering therapies. Materials and Methods: This cohort study utilized retrospective data from 10 256 patients with T2DM who initiated second-line glucose-lowering therapy (switch from or add-on to metformin) between 2011 and 2014 in Germany and the UK. Effects of pre-specified patient characteristics on 6-month HbA1c changes were assessed using analysis of covariance. Results: Patients had a mean (standard error [SE]) baseline HbA1c of 8.68% (0.02); 28.5% of patients discontinued metformin and switched to an alternative therapy and the remainder initiated add-on therapy. Mean (SE) unadjusted 6-month HbA1c change was −1.27% (0.02). When adjusted for baseline HbA1c, 6-month changes depended markedly on the magnitude of the baseline HbA1c (HbA1c <9%, −0.45% per unit increase in HbA1c; HbA1c ≥9%, −0.87% per unit increase in HbA1c). Adjusted mean 6-month HbA1c reductions showed slight treatment differences (range, 0.92–1.09%; P <.001). Greater reductions in HbA1c were associated with second-line treatment initiation within 6 months of T2DM diagnosis (1.36% vs 1.03% [P <.001]) and advanced age (≥70 years, 1.13%; <70 years, 1.02% [P <.001]). Conclusions: Many patients with T2DM have very high HbA1c levels when initiating second-line therapy, indicating the need for earlier treatment intensification. Patient-specific factors merit consideration when making treatment decisions.