Dataset Information

Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Making the diagnosis of asthma is challenging. Guidelines recommend that clinicians identify a group at 'high probability' of asthma. High probability, however, is not numerically defined giving rise to uncertainty. The aim of this work was to build consensus on what constitutes a high probability of asthma in primary care. High probability was defined as the probability threshold at which there is enough information to make a firm diagnosis of asthma, and a subsequent negative test would not alter that opinion (assumed to be a false negative).

Design

Mixed-methods study.

Setting

A consensus workshop using modified nominal group technique was held during an international respiratory conference.

Participants

International conference attendees eligible if they had knowledge/experience of working in primary care, respiratory medicine and spoke English.

Methods

Participants took part in facilitated discussions and voted over three rounds on what constituted a high probability of asthma diagnosis. The workshop was audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed.

Results

Based on final votes, the mean value for a high probability of asthma in primary care was 75% (SD 7.6), representing a perceived trade-off between limiting the number of false positives (more likely if a lower threshold was used) and pragmatism on the basis that first-line preventive therapies (ie, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids) are relatively low risk. The need to review response to treatment was strongly emphasised for detecting non-responders and reviewing the diagnosis.

Conclusion

A consensus probability of 75% was the threshold at which the primary care participants in this workshop felt confident to establish the diagnosis of asthma, albeit with the caveat that a review of treatment response was essential. Contextual factors, including availability and timing of tests and the ease with which patients could be reviewed, influenced participants' decision making.

SUBMITTER: Daines L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7204930 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop.

Daines Luke L Lewis Steff S Schneider Antonius A Sheikh Aziz A Pinnock Hilary H

BMJ open 20200420 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Making the diagnosis of asthma is challenging. Guidelines recommend that clinicians identify a group at 'high probability' of asthma. High probability, however, is not numerically defined giving rise to uncertainty. The aim of this work was to build consensus on what constitutes a high probability of asthma in primary care. High probability was defined as the probability threshold at which there is enough information to make a firm diagnosis of asthma, and a subsequent negative ...[more]

PMID: 32317260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth professionals require a unique set of knowledge and skills in order to meet increasing expectations to use research evidence to inform practice and policy decisions. They need to be able to find, access, interpret, and apply the best available research evidence, along with information about patient preferences, clinical expertise, and the clinical context and resources, to such decisions. This study determined preferences for continuing education following an intensive educational workshop and evaluated the impact of the workshop on evidence informed decision making (EIDM) knowledge, skills, and behaviours.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods, longitudinal study design was implemented among a convenience sample of various health care professionals attending the workshop. EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours were quantitatively measured at baseline and six month follow-up, with EIDM knowledge and skills measured additionally immediately following the educational workshop (post-test measurement). To determine participants preferences for continuing education, data were collected using quantitative survey (post-test measurement) and qualitative (individual telephone interviews after six-month follow-up) methods.ResultsEIDM knowledge and skills increased significantly from baseline to immediately following the intervention [5.6, 95% CI (3.7, 7.4), P < 0.001] and from baseline to six-month follow-up [3.7, 95% CI (2.1, 5.3), P < 0.001], with a significant decrease from immediately following the intervention to six-month follow-up [-1.9, 95% CI (-3.5, -0.3), P 0.018]. EIDM behaviours increased, but not significantly, from baseline to six-month follow-up [1.7, 95% CI (-0.3, 3.8), P 0.095]. At baseline and six-month follow-up there was a weak, non-significant positive correlation between EIDM knowledge and skills and EIDM behaviours (r = 0.29, P 0.069 and r = 0.24, P 0.136, respectively). Over time there was a shift in preferences for timing and frequency of online continuing education strategies. Willingness to participate in continuing education, however, remained evident.ConclusionsAn intensive educational workshop shows promise for increasing EIDM knowledge and skills. Increasing EIDM knowledge and skills may promote the capacity of health professionals to use research evidence when making practice and policy decisions and, in turn, lead to positive patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo analyze current practices in shared decision-making (SDM) in primary care and perform a needs assessment for the role of information technology (IT) interventions.Materials and methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases: (1) ethnographic observation of clinical encounters, (2) patient interviews, and (3) physician interviews. SDM was measured using the validated OPTION scale. Semistructured interviews followed an interview guide (developed by our multidisciplinary team) informed by the Traditional Decision Conflict Scale and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Field notes were independently coded and analyzed by two reviewers in Dedoose.ResultsTwenty-four patient encounters were observed in 3 diverse practices with an average OPTION score of 57.2 (0-100 scale; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.8-62.6). Twenty-two patient and 8 physician interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Cohen's kappa, measuring coder agreement, was 0.42. Patient domains were: establishing trust, influence of others, flexibility, frustrations, values, and preferences. Physician domains included frustrations, technology (concerns, existing use, and desires), and decision making (current methods used, challenges, and patients' understanding).DiscussionGiven low SDM observed, multiple opportunities for technology to enhance SDM exist based on specific OPTION items that received lower scores, including: (1) checking the patient's preferred information format, (2) asking the patient's preferred level of involvement in decision making, and (3) providing an opportunity for deferring a decision. Based on data from interviews, patients and physicians value information exchange and are open to technologies that enhance communication of care options.ConclusionFuture primary care IT platforms should prioritize the 3 quantitative gaps identified to improve physician-patient communication and relationships. Additionally, SDM tools should seek to standardize common workflow steps across decisions and focus on barriers to increasing adoption of effective SDM tools into routine primary care.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:As cancer survivors continue to live longer, the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs) will also rise. Relatively little is understood about the diagnostic pathway for SPCs, how people appraise, interpret symptoms and seek help for a second different cancer and the experiences (including challenges) of healthcare providers relating to SPCs. This study aims to systematically appraise and synthesise the literature on the pathways to diagnosis of an SPC and the associated patient and healthcare provider experiences. METHODS:The approach taken includes systematic searches of published and unpublished literature without any date or language restrictions. MEDLINE, Embase, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE In-Process and non-indexed citations, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, PROSPERO and grey literature will be searched to identify observational, systematic reviews, mixed methods and qualitative studies of interest. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened against the inclusion-exclusion criteria by at least two reviewers independently. Relevant outcomes of interest and study and population characteristics will be extracted. Synthesis will be used guided by the Pathways to Treatment model and the Olesen model of time intervals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required. This systematic review will provide a deeper understanding of the complex and heterogeneous diagnostic pathways of SPCs, while identifying common themes across the diagnostic interval, routes to diagnosis and patient and healthcare provider experiences. These findings will help provide a nuanced picture of the diagnostic pathway for SPCs that may inform policy and consistent practice. In particular, approaches to early diagnosis for an SPC; including the timing and reasons behind the decision by the patient to seek care,the challenges faced by healthcare providers, and in the development of future interventions to reduce the delay in patient time-to-presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016051692.

Project description:Patient portals may improve communication between families of children with asthma and their primary care providers and improve outcomes. However, the feasibility of using portals to collect patient-reported outcomes from families and the barriers and facilitators of portal implementation across diverse pediatric primary care settings have not been established.We evaluated the feasibility of using a patient portal for pediatric asthma in primary care, its impact on management, and barriers and facilitators of implementation success.We conducted a mixed-methods implementation study in 20 practices (11 states). Using the portal, parents of children with asthma aged 6-12 years completed monthly surveys to communicate treatment concerns, treatment goals, symptom control, medication use, and side effects. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of portal use with child characteristics and changes to asthma management. Ten clinician focus groups and 22 semistructured parent interviews explored barriers and facilitators of use in the context of an evidence-based implementation framework.We invited 9133 families to enroll and 237 (2.59%) used the portal (range by practice, 0.6%-13.6%). Children of parents or guardians who used the portal were significantly more likely than nonusers to be aged 6-9 years (vs 10-12, P=.02), have mild or moderate/severe persistent asthma (P=.009 and P=.04), have a prescription of a controller medication (P<.001), and have private insurance (P=.002). Portal users with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more medication changes and primary care asthma visits after using the portal relative to the year earlier (increases of 14% and 16%, respectively). Qualitative results revealed the importance of practice organization (coordinated workflows) as well as family (asthma severity) and innovation (facilitated communication and ease of use) characteristics for implementation success.Although use was associated with higher treatment engagement, our results suggest that achieving widespread portal adoption is unlikely in the short term. Implementation efforts should include workflow redesign and prioritize enrollment of symptomatic children.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01966068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966068 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i9iSQkm3).

Project description:BackgroundAsthma is a chronic respiratory disease that poses a substantial burden on individuals and the health care system. Despite published national guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, considerable care gaps exist. Suboptimal adherence to asthma diagnosis and management guidelines contributes to poor patient outcomes. The integration of electronic tools (eTools) into electronic medical records (EMRs) represents a knowledge translation opportunity to support best practices.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine how best to integrate evidence-based asthma eTools into primary care EMRs across Ontario and Canada to improve adherence to guidelines as well as measure and monitor performance.MethodsIn total, 2 focus groups comprising physicians and allied health professionals who were considered experts in primary care, asthma, and EMRs were convened. One focus group also included a patient participant. Focus groups used a semistructured discussion-based format to consider the optimal methods for integrating asthma eTools into EMRs. Discussions were held on the web via Microsoft Teams (Microsoft Corp). The first focus group discussed integrating asthma indicators into EMRs using eTools, and participants completed a questionnaire evaluating the clarity, relevance, and feasibility of collecting asthma performance indicator data at the point of care. The second focus group addressed how to incorporate eTools for asthma into a primary care setting and included a questionnaire evaluating the perceived utility of various eTools. Focus group discussions were recorded and analyzed using thematic qualitative analysis. The responses to focus group questionnaires were assessed using descriptive quantitative analysis.ResultsQualitative analysis of the 2 focus group discussions revealed 7 key themes: designing outcome-oriented tools, gaining stakeholder trust, facilitating open lines of communication, prioritizing the end user, striving for efficiency, ensuring adaptability, and developing within existing workflows. In addition, 24 asthma indicators were rated according to clarity, relevance, feasibility, and overall usefulness. In total, 5 asthma performance indicators were identified as the most relevant. These included smoking cessation support, monitoring using objective measures, the number of emergency department visits and hospitalizations, assessment of asthma control, and presence of an asthma action plan. The eTool questionnaire responses revealed that the Asthma Action Plan Wizard and Electronic Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire were perceived to be the most useful in primary care.ConclusionsPrimary care physicians, allied health professionals, and patients consider that eTools for asthma care present a unique opportunity to improve adherence to best-practice guidelines in primary care and collect performance indicators. The strategies and themes identified in this study can be leveraged to overcome barriers associated with asthma eTool integration into primary care EMRs. The most beneficial indicators and eTools, along with the key themes identified, will guide future asthma eTool implementation.

Dataset Information

Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets