跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT00131157
NCT00131157Unknown不适用

A Randomized-Controlled Evaluation of Spirometry Expert Support in General Practice

Radboud University Medical Center1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 39 人开始时间: 2003年1月1日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
入组人数
39
试验地点
1
主要终点
Study I: between-group difference in the proportion of cases in which the GP opts for the gold standard diagnosis before versus expert/sham information

研究概览

简要总结

More and more general practitioners (GPs) use spirometry in their practices. At this time, there is sufficient reason to presume that, after a single postgraduate training program without any further support, most GPs have insufficient knowledge and ability to assure valid interpretation of their spirometry tests. Therefore, some kind of continuous diagnostic support with regard to spirometry interpretation by GPs is advisable. The aim of the present study is to assess whether implementation of spirometry expert support (either by a computerised expert system or a working agreement between general practitioners and respiratory consultants with respect to spirometry interpretation) causes changes in diagnosing and appropriateness and efficiency of medical care in subjects with chronic respiratory morbidity managed in general practice.

详细描述

More and more general practitioners (GPs) use spirometry in their practices. At this time, there is sufficient reason to presume that, after a single postgraduate training program without any further support, most GPs have insufficient knowledge and ability to assure valid interpretation of their spirometry tests. Therefore, some kind of continuous diagnostic support with regard to spirometry interpretation by GPs is advisable. The problem formulation for the study proposed is: "Does implementation of spirometry expert support (either by a computerized expert system or a local working agreement between GPs and respiratory consultants with respect to spirometry interpretation) cause changes in diagnosing and quality and efficiency of medical care in subjects with chronic respiratory morbidity managed in general practice?". In order to address this issue, two separate studies with different designs are proposed. Study I (n=62 GPs) is an 'in-depth' study of the GPs' decision-making process with regard to spirometry, and the impact of a computerized expert system on this process. Study II (n=39 general practices) is a pragmatic randomised-controlled implementation study evaluating two realistic modes of spirometry expert support (i.e., a computerized expert system or a working agreement between GPs and respiratory consultants).

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Diagnostic
盲法
Single

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者
否

入选标准

  • •GP practices with a Windows supported electronic Patient Journal System (PJS) in a certain postal region in the Netherlands.

排除标准

  • •GP practices without a Windows supported PJS
  • •Practices outside a certain postcode region

结局指标

主要结局

Study I: between-group difference in the proportion of cases in which the GP opts for the gold standard diagnosis before versus expert/sham information

Study II: between-group difference in the proportion of patients with a changed respiratory diagnosis after spirometry interpretation in a random sample (n=20 patients) taken from an index population per practice

次要结局

  • Study I: between-group difference in the proportion of cases in which the GP opts for the gold standard treatment (prescription, referrals) before versus after the addition of expert/sham information
  • Study II: between-group difference in the proportion of ordered additional investigations and referrals by GPs

研究者

申办方类型
Other

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验