OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to ascertain GPs' views about open access to out-patient follow-up for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and a postal survey were carried out in general practices in West Glamorgan UK, each with at least one IBD patient taking part in a randomized trial of open access versus routine follow-up, which has been reported elsewhere. A total of 112 GPs from 53 general practices who referred the 180 study patients to specialist gastroenterological care in Neath or Swansea were included in the study. Main outcome measures were GPs' experience of the trial; preferences between methods of out-patient follow-up; and their views about enhancing open access follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-nine GPs from 40 practices took part in the practice-specific data collection and 91 returned 156 patient-specific questionnaires. They expressed a strong preference for open access follow-up, for both specific patients (108/156 patients) and IBD patients in general (47/69 GPs). Preference for extending open access follow-up to other chronic conditions was not so strong (21/69 GPs). A substantial number of GPs considered their experience of the trial limited (30/69), and few GPs were aware of the shared care guideline distributed before the trial started (8/69). Few GPs encountered any problems in the management of the study patients (9/69) and <50% of the GPs used a Cumulative Encounter Form (29/69) developed for the study. Most GPs were supportive of giving patients written guidelines (56/69) and establishing a gastroenterological (GI) nurse practitioner (45/69). CONCLUSIONS: Open access follow-up of patients with IBD is supported by GPs. The approach would probably be improved by the distribution of written information to patients, the establishment of a GI nurse practitioner and an integrated approach between the nurse, hospital specialist, GP and patient.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to ascertain GPs' views about open access to out-patient follow-up for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and a postal survey were carried out in general practices in West Glamorgan UK, each with at least one IBD patient taking part in a randomized trial of open access versus routine follow-up, which has been reported elsewhere. A total of 112 GPs from 53 general practices who referred the 180 study patients to specialist gastroenterological care in Neath or Swansea were included in the study. Main outcome measures were GPs' experience of the trial; preferences between methods of out-patient follow-up; and their views about enhancing open access follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-nine GPs from 40 practices took part in the practice-specific data collection and 91 returned 156 patient-specific questionnaires. They expressed a strong preference for open access follow-up, for both specific patients (108/156 patients) and IBD patients in general (47/69 GPs). Preference for extending open access follow-up to other chronic conditions was not so strong (21/69 GPs). A substantial number of GPs considered their experience of the trial limited (30/69), and few GPs were aware of the shared care guideline distributed before the trial started (8/69). Few GPs encountered any problems in the management of the study patients (9/69) and <50% of the GPs used a Cumulative Encounter Form (29/69) developed for the study. Most GPs were supportive of giving patients written guidelines (56/69) and establishing a gastroenterological (GI) nurse practitioner (45/69). CONCLUSIONS: Open access follow-up of patients with IBD is supported by GPs. The approach would probably be improved by the distribution of written information to patients, the establishment of a GI nurse practitioner and an integrated approach between the nurse, hospital specialist, GP and patient.
Authors: J G Williams; S E Roberts; M F Ali; W Y Cheung; D R Cohen; G Demery; A Edwards; M Greer; M D Hellier; H A Hutchings; B Ip; M F Longo; I T Russell; H A Snooks; J C Williams Journal: Gut Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 23.059