ReviewPostgraduate medical journal2005
Management of chronic heart failure: perceived needs of general practitioners in light of the new general medical services contract.
Review in Postgraduate medical journal, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of the new contract on GPs' working lives and perceptions of quality of care: a longitudinal survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the existence of several chronic heart failure (CHF) guidelines the treatment of patients with CHF is suboptimal. The new general medical services (GMS) contract in primary care has only three specific performance indicators for patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this current questionnaire survey was to assess the views of general practitioners (GPs) on CHF treatments and services in light of the new GMS contract. METHODS AND
resultsAll local GPs (717) were sent a questionnaire. Fifty three per cent were returned. Forty five per cent of GPs had access to a community CHF nurse. Having read a national guideline (SIGN) and having the support of a CHF nurse did not seem to affect the knowledge of GPs in terms of perceived benefits of drug treatments. GPs with access to a specialist CHF nurse service attached more importance to it than those with no specialist nurse (p = 0.003).
conclusionsMost GPs were aware of the existence of a national guideline but many had not read it. There was little or no difference in the knowledge level for various evidence based treatments between GPs who had or had not read the guideline suggesting that reading guidelines may not be a key factor in determining knowledge. Support for a specialist CHF nurse was higher among GPs who already had this service, suggesting that this service is valued. The new GMS contract may improve identification and diagnosis of patients with CHF but there is a danger that it may fall short of ensuring optimal treatment for patients with CHF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.