There are many reasons I love my work. One of the reasons is that it is impossible to be bored! We see a whole range of people who believe they have or might have a problem and want to discuss it. Sometimes, that might be a significant medical emergency. Sometimes it might be a significant chronic disease. Sometimes it might be a significant mental illness, or a self limiting condition, or a request for information or support to get housing. Sometimes it might be loneliness. Often these occur together in the same person. This list could be endless - the only limit is the world population and imagination. And there is almost nothing where we can say "That's not our business."
So how do you teach that? In essence, we need a safe approach for anything that can come through the door. And that means there is no learning off limits, nothing we can learn that can have no application. But we can't know everything.
I thought it might be interesting just to post the variety of topics that Michael and I covered in one day, Admittedly it was a day where we had more chance to chat than usual. But the range covered would not be unusual. I'll describe what we did, and reflect a bit on why this might be relevant to General Practice. (Some of the info might be a bit vague - I don't want to run the risk of any patients being identified! Confidentiality is a cornerstone of our work!)
As you'd expect, we do talk about medical conditions and treatments.
COPD and inhalers
A quick discussion in the corridor on the use of Salmeterol/Fluticasone combination (you all know it by another name: "The Purple Inhaler!") in COPD. The evidence shows that people are more likely to have a serious pneumonia on a steroid inhaler. The long acting beta agonist is probably helpful, but we should be cautious about the combination. This wasn't the information we were often taught about this combination, and we have both felt a bit duped by drug companies!
A Rash!
There probably isn't a day in General Practice where you can't use a rash as a teaching opportunity. We're usually taught rashes as if pattern recognition is the only game in town, but it's always always always worth sitting on your hands before looking at the rash and taking a history. It's true for any set of symptoms, and it's true for rashes. And diagnosis isn't the only game in town. You need to be able to form a management plan acceptable to the patient (or their parents) and explain it and understand and alleviate any particular concerns.
Rare Diseases
Every GP has a few people they know well with a rare disease. The care of a patient with a rare disease can't really be discussed online, because the person is all too readily identifiable. As GPs we are so unlikely to see any one particular rare disease, so we don't usually know about them until we see them. But as GPs, we also know that these are people, and the diagnosis of a rare condition isn't what defines them as person - though it often has huge impact. We thought about whether the symptoms my patient had might be related to their rare condition, or whether they might be something else more common, perhaps unrelated. After all, people with rare diseases need the rest of their medical care, too, including preventive care. And I had one of those frisoons of pleasure as Michael quoted back at me the paper I'd co-written. (I think he knew this!) (I'm biased, but I think it's worth a read - it sets out the common problems faced by people with a rare disease, and also an approach GPs might take)
Childhood Obesity
Michael and I have discussed the problem of obesity and food security quite often (and I have drawn on these thoughts blogging here and here) and we have shared Michael Pollan's books which take a cultural view of healthy food, rather than a nutritional approach. On Tuesday, we listened to this podcast from Freakonomics, which highlighted discussions from a range of experts across different fields. It was interesting to see the personal responsibility versus social policy play out again, as well as a search for technical solutions. If you're thinking aboout setting up a tapeworm company, there might well be an opening for you...
Over to you
The day finished with me (Tim) learning 2 things. I learnt what Takotsubo syndrome was. And I learnt that I was the only person in the world who'd never heard of it before!
We'd love to hear your thoughts on these topics - either using the #supertwision hashtag or in the comments below. What's the range of things you cover? What's the strangest resource you've used?
Personal reflections, comment, discussion by and for doctors working in Aboriginal Medical Services or those who want to understand their work better.
Showing posts with label Primary Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Primary Care. Show all posts
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Monday, September 3, 2012
This blog's first scoop!
I have some news that you probably don't know. It's tucked away hidden in non-secret documents published in academic journals, which took literally minutes of hard work to discover.
So why isn't this widely known?
Let's start from here. If you were to right down what you know about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (and you are a non-indigenous reader of this blog!) you would probably come up with words like Gap; poor health outcomes; non-compliance; difficult to reach; poor access; diabetes; renal disease; heart disease. You'll have others, too, many of them negative. If you do a similar exercise for "Aboriginal Medical Service" the most common reporting is of stories of dysfunction and poor governance.
Let me tell you how we know this unknown fact.
This is a paper from the Medical Journal of Australia in 2009, as part of the Kanyini Vascular collaboration. {Declarations - The service I work for is part of this collaboration and was one of the services audited for this paper. And one of the authors, David Peiris is a good friend of mine, who pointed out the comparison to me} They conducted a file audit of 1165 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to look at their management of cardiovascular risk in these services. The results are summarised in this graph:
Take some time to look at it. It shows for people with different levels of risk of cardiovascular disease (the different colours) which of their risk factors are being treated - blood pressure (BP), Cholesterol (statin), blood thinning (Antiplatelet - aspirin for most people) and combinations of these. The higher your risk, the more you benefit from having all of these treated.
What this graph shows is that there is plenty of room for improvement.
Now on to the second paper, the AUSHeart study from the same authors, who do the same sort of audit but this time for patients in mainstream general practice, and prospective. They included 5293 patients. The similar graph (sadly presented only in black and white!) is below.
We see a similar pattern, with similar risk levels. And again, room for improvement.
But when you compare the actual numbers (get a ruler and and the percentages - that's what I did!) you see that the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health services treat a higher proportion of their patients for their cardiovascular disease and their risk of cardiovascular risk. Let's put that into English. Aboriginal Medical Services are doing better at preventing thier patients from having heart attacks and strokes in the future. For those with established cardiovascular disease, about 60% of people with heart disease get the full recommended treatment in an AMS, and about 50% in mainstream practice. At each level of established and high risk disease, adequate treatment levels are higher. At low risk (where the blance of risk-benefit may be tilted more toward risk) fewer are treated.
This methodology is far from perfect. The differences may not be significant, we may not be comparing like with like. But the bottom line is this:
It's early days in being able to quantify the quality of primary care in Australia, and this takes a purely medical model that would be narrower than that espoused by most Aboriginal Medical Services.
However, if you are a health professional, consider going to work in a setting where you are able to be truly effective. If you are interested in policy, then you need to look at the ACCHO sector at what mainstream primary care can learn. And if you are telling the stories of Aboriginal health, you may need to change from a story of unremitting failure, to one of success against the odds.
Aboriginal Medical Services are more effective than mainstream general practice!
To qualify that a bit - Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services are at least as good, and maybe better at cardiovascular disease prevention than mainstream general practice.So why isn't this widely known?
Let's start from here. If you were to right down what you know about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (and you are a non-indigenous reader of this blog!) you would probably come up with words like Gap; poor health outcomes; non-compliance; difficult to reach; poor access; diabetes; renal disease; heart disease. You'll have others, too, many of them negative. If you do a similar exercise for "Aboriginal Medical Service" the most common reporting is of stories of dysfunction and poor governance.
Let me tell you how we know this unknown fact.
This is a paper from the Medical Journal of Australia in 2009, as part of the Kanyini Vascular collaboration. {Declarations - The service I work for is part of this collaboration and was one of the services audited for this paper. And one of the authors, David Peiris is a good friend of mine, who pointed out the comparison to me} They conducted a file audit of 1165 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to look at their management of cardiovascular risk in these services. The results are summarised in this graph:
Take some time to look at it. It shows for people with different levels of risk of cardiovascular disease (the different colours) which of their risk factors are being treated - blood pressure (BP), Cholesterol (statin), blood thinning (Antiplatelet - aspirin for most people) and combinations of these. The higher your risk, the more you benefit from having all of these treated.
What this graph shows is that there is plenty of room for improvement.
Now on to the second paper, the AUSHeart study from the same authors, who do the same sort of audit but this time for patients in mainstream general practice, and prospective. They included 5293 patients. The similar graph (sadly presented only in black and white!) is below.
We see a similar pattern, with similar risk levels. And again, room for improvement.
But when you compare the actual numbers (get a ruler and and the percentages - that's what I did!) you see that the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health services treat a higher proportion of their patients for their cardiovascular disease and their risk of cardiovascular risk. Let's put that into English. Aboriginal Medical Services are doing better at preventing thier patients from having heart attacks and strokes in the future. For those with established cardiovascular disease, about 60% of people with heart disease get the full recommended treatment in an AMS, and about 50% in mainstream practice. At each level of established and high risk disease, adequate treatment levels are higher. At low risk (where the blance of risk-benefit may be tilted more toward risk) fewer are treated.
This methodology is far from perfect. The differences may not be significant, we may not be comparing like with like. But the bottom line is this:
Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services are at least as good as mainstream general practice in a common important aspect of preventive care in a population that we say is at higher risk and harder to reach and treat.
In other words, Aboriginal medical services are succeeding in providing quality care in communities that need it most, and other services struggle to reach.It's early days in being able to quantify the quality of primary care in Australia, and this takes a purely medical model that would be narrower than that espoused by most Aboriginal Medical Services.
However, if you are a health professional, consider going to work in a setting where you are able to be truly effective. If you are interested in policy, then you need to look at the ACCHO sector at what mainstream primary care can learn. And if you are telling the stories of Aboriginal health, you may need to change from a story of unremitting failure, to one of success against the odds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
