Primary care physicians' attitudes towards cognitive screening: findings from a national postal survey

2009 ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Panayiotis Iracleous ◽  
Jason Xin Nie ◽  
C. Shawn Tracy ◽  
Rahim Moineddin ◽  
Zahinoor Ismail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Cognitive Screening

scholarly journals Potentials and current shortcomings in the cooperation between German centers for rare diseases and primary care physicians: results from the project TRANSLATE-NAMSE

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Druschke ◽  
F. Krause ◽  
G. Müller ◽  
J. Scharfe ◽  
G. F. Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Rare Disease ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
National Plan ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Interface Management ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Center For Rare Diseases

Abstract Background The TRANSLATE-NAMSE project with the strengthening of the centers for rare diseases with their affiliation to the European Reference Networks was a major step towards the implementation of the German National Plan of Action for People with Rare Diseases establishing better care structures. As primary care physicians, general practitioners and pediatricians play a central role in the diagnosis of patients with rare disease, as it is usually them referring to specialists and rare disease centers. Therefore, the interface management between primary care physicians and the centers for rare diseases is of particular importance. Methods In a mixed-method-approach an anonymous postal survey of 1,500 randomly selected primary care physicians in Germany was conducted with focus on (1) knowledge about a center for rare diseases and how it works, (2) in case of cooperation, satisfaction with the services provided by centers, and (3) expectations and needs they have with regard to the centers. In addition, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with physicians who had already referred patients to a center. Results In total, 248 physicians responded to the survey, and 15 primary care physicians were interviewed. We observed a wide lack of knowledge about the existence of (45.6% confirmed to know at least one center) about how to access rare disease centers (50.4% of those who know a center confirmed knowledge) and what the center specializes in. In case of cooperation the evaluation was mostly positive. Conclusion To improve medical care, the interplay between primary care physicians and rare disease centers needs to be strengthened. (1) To improve the communication, the objectives and functioning of the rare disease centers should become more visible. (2) Other projects dealing with the analysis and improvement of interface management between centers and primary care physicians, as described in the National Plan of Action for People with Rare Diseases, need to be implemented immediately. (3) If the project is evaluated positively, the structures of TRANSLATE-NAMSE should be introduced nationwide into the German health care system to ensure comprehensive, quality-assured care for people with rare diseases with special consideration of the key role of primary care physicians—also taking into account the financial expenditures of this new care model.

THE ROAD AHEAD TO CURE AND PREVENT ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: IMPLEMENTING PREVENTION INTO PRIMARY CARE

2015 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
B. Fougère ◽  
B. Vellas ◽  
J. Delrieu ◽  
A.J. Sinclair ◽  
A. Wimo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cognitive Status ◽  
Cognitive Screening ◽  
Cognitive Complaint

Most old adults receive their health care from their primary care practitioner; as a consequence, as the population ages, the manifestations and complications of cognitive impairment and dementia impose a growing burden on providers of primary care. Current guidelines do not recommend routine cognitive screening for older persons by primary care physicians, although the vast majority recommend a cognitive status assessment and neurological examination for subjects with a cognitive complaint. Also, no clinical practice guidelines recommend interventions in older adults with cognitive impairment in primary care settings. However, primary care physicians need to conduct a review of risks and protective factors associated with cognitive decline and organize interventions to improve or maintain cognitive function. Recent epidemiological studies have indicated numerous associations between lifestyle-related risk factors and incidental cognitive impairment. The development of biomarkers could also help in diagnosis, prognosis, selection for clinical trials, and objective assessment of therapeutic responses. Interventions aimed at cognitive impairment prevention should be pragmatic and easy to implement on a large scale in different health care systems, without generating high additional costs or burden on participants, medical and social care teams.

scholarly journals Feasibility and Acceptability of the Informant AD8 for Cognitive Screening in Primary Healthcare: A Pilot Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
YanHong Dong ◽  
Tuck Seng Cheng ◽  
Keith Yu Kei Tsou ◽  
Qun Lin Chan ◽  
Christopher Li-Hsian Chen
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Older Adult ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Cognitive Screening ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Memory Clinics

Objectives.The utility of informant AD8 for case finding of cognitive impairment at primary healthcare settings is unknown and therefore its feasibility and acceptability for targeted screening at a primary healthcare clinic should be investigated.Methods.The informants of older adult patients attending a primary healthcare clinic in Singapore were administered the AD8. Positive screening findings were provided to patients’ primary care physicians for referrals to specialist memory clinics. The acceptability of AD8 was evaluated by collecting feedbacks from the informants and primary care physicians.Results.205 patients and their informants were recruited. However, 6 (2.9%) informants were uncontactable, while the majority of the remaining 199 patients with completed AD8 (96.5%,n=192) found it acceptable where 59 (29.6%) patients were deemed cognitively impaired (AD8 ≥ 2). Clinicians (100%,n=5) found the AD8 helpful in facilitating referrals to memory clinics. However, most referral recommendations (81.4%,n=48) were declined by patients and/or informant due to limited insight of implications of cognitive impairment.Conclusions.The AD8 can be easily administered and is well tolerated. It detected cognitive impairment in one-third of older adult patients and therefore may be useful for case finding of cognitive impairment in the primary healthcare.

Questionnaire order significantly increased response to a postal survey sent to primary care physicians

2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances J. Drummond ◽  
Linda Sharp ◽  
Anne-Elie Carsin ◽  
Tracy Kelleher ◽  
Harry Comber
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Postal Survey

Sexually transmissible infection management practices among primary care physicians in Singapore

Sexual Health ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy K. W. Chan ◽  
Hiok Hee Tan ◽  
Martin T. W. Chio ◽  
Priya Sen ◽  
Kar Woon Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Disease Notification ◽  
Sti Testing ◽  
Sexually Transmissible Infections ◽  
Parenteral Penicillin ◽  
Syphilis Serology

Background: Primary care physicians manage a significant number of sexually transmissible infections (STI); however, there has not been a survey to assess the standard of medical care, completeness of notifications, provision of counselling and contact tracing by primary care physicians in Singapore. Methods: An anonymous postal survey was conducted in which 1557 questionnaires were mailed out to general practitioners (GP), and government primary care and emergency department doctors. Results: In all, 736 questionnaires (47.3%) were returned, and the majority of respondents were graduates from the local medical school, worked in solo or group practices and were males. One hundred and thirty doctors (17.7%) indicated they had received training attachments or postings in dermato-venereology departments. Almost one-third (30.8%) had been working as doctors for fewer than 10 years and 87.8% reported that they managed STI in their practice. Almost half did not investigate genital discharge patients, and one-third would still use ciprofloxacin to treat discharges. In the management of ulcers, over half indicated that they would order syphilis serology, and a significant minority would use parenteral penicillin. Most doctors provided history taking, screening for other STI, testing for HIV infection and STI counselling. A small minority of doctors undertook contact tracing, and there was incomplete notification of many STI. Conclusions: Overall medical management of STI by primary care physicians was acceptable. Skills in contact tracing and reminders on disease notification are areas that need particular attention.

Screening for dementia in primary care - a viable proposition?

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aideen Freyne
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Screening Instruments ◽  
Cognitive Screening ◽  
Care Level ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Primary Care Level

AbstractHealth policy documents recommend screening for cognitive impairment, although in practice this is not implemented. This article looks at the issues which require consideration in implementing a screening programme. These include factors pertinent to the disease under consideration, resources, both personnel and time, lack of experience of cognitive screening at a primary care level, use of screening instruments and uncertainty about management of positive cases. Only by identifying the practical difficulties involved in screening, can steps can be taken to overcome them and to implement screening programmes which are acceptable to the population under consideration and their primary care physicians.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

1566: BPH Management in an HMO Setting: Differences between Primary Care Physicians and Urologists

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 517-517
Author(s):  
John M. Hollingsworth ◽  
Stephanie Daignault ◽  
Brent K. Hollenbeck ◽  
John T. Wei
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document