Literature DB >> 33020167

Group medical consultation for osteoporosis: a prospective pilot study of patient experience in Canadian tertiary care.

Emma O Billington1, A Lynn Feasel2, Jessica L VanDyke3, Gregory A Kline1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Delivery of patient-centred care is limited by physician time. Group medical consultations may save physician time without compromising patient experience. AIM: To assess patient experience and specialist physician time commitment in a group consultation for osteoporosis. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Prospective pilot study at a tertiary osteoporosis centre in Canada between May 2016 and June 2019.
METHOD: The authors evaluated women referred for osteoporosis who chose a 2-hour group consultation instead of a one-to-one consultation. Group consultations were led by an osteoporosis nurse and specialist physician, and consisted of individualised fracture risk assessment and education regarding osteoporosis therapies, followed by a decision-making exercise to choose a treatment plan. Patients then followed up with their GPs to implement this plan. Patient experience was assessed via a questionnaire immediately and 3 months post-consultation, at which time GP satisfaction and patient treatment status were also surveyed.
RESULTS: Of 560 referrals received, 18 patients declined osteoporosis specialist assessment, 54 could not be contacted, 303 attended a one-to- one consultation, and 185 attended a group consultation. Mean participant age was 62.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 5.8) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk was 13.0 (SD 7.0)%. Immediately post-consultation, 104 (97.2%) patients were satisfied and 102 (95.3%) felt included in decision making. Satisfaction was reported by 95/99 (96.0%) patients and 27/36 (75.0%) GPs. Treatment plans had been enacted by 90 (90.1%) patients. For a matched number of individual consultations, each group session conferred a specialist physician time savings of 5.5 hours.
CONCLUSION: Group consultations represent a satisfactory and time-efficient alternative to one-to-one consultations for select patients with osteoporosis. © British Journal of General Practice 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  family practice; osteoporosis; patient education; patient preference; primary health care

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33020167      PMCID: PMC7537994          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X713081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  22 in total

1.  2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.

Authors:  Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Shared Decision Making and the Importance of Time.

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Anne M Stiggelbout; Victor M Montori
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Prime Time for Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Erica S Spatz; Harlan M Krumholz; Benjamin W Moulton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians.

Authors:  Valerie J King; Melinda M Davis; Paul N Gorman; J Bruin Rugge; L J Fagnan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Canadians still waiting for timely access to care.

Authors:  Lauren Vogel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  A systematic review of factors affecting medication adherence among patients with osteoporosis.

Authors:  C T Yeam; S Chia; H C C Tan; Y H Kwan; W Fong; J J B Seng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Adherence to bisphosphonate therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases.

Authors:  Ethel S Siris; Steven T Harris; Clifford J Rosen; Charles E Barr; James N Arvesen; Thomas A Abbott; Stuart Silverman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Bisphosphonate prescribing, persistence and cumulative exposure in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  A M Burden; J M Paterson; D H Solomon; M Mamdani; D N Juurlink; S M Cadarette
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J Compston; A Cooper; C Cooper; N Gittoes; C Gregson; N Harvey; S Hope; J A Kanis; E V McCloskey; K E S Poole; D M Reid; P Selby; F Thompson; A Thurston; N Vine
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.617

10.  The design of a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure osteoporosis knowledge in women: the Osteoporosis Knowledge Assessment Tool (OKAT).

Authors:  Tania M Winzenberg; Brian Oldenburg; Sue Frendin; Graeme Jones
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  1 in total

1.  Simulated effects of early menopausal bone mineral density preservation on long-term fracture risk: a feasibility study.

Authors:  E O Billington; W D Leslie; J P Brown; J C Prior; S N Morin; C S Kovacs; S M Kaiser; B C Lentle; T Anastassiades; T Towheed; G A Kline
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.507

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.