OBJECTIVETo test whether the implementation of elements of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) via a specially trained practice nurse leads to an improved cardiovascular risk profile among type 2 diabetes patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis cluster randomized controlled trial with primary care physicians as the unit of randomization was conducted in the German part of Switzerland. Three hundred twenty-six type 2 diabetes patients (age >18 years; at least one glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ] level of ‡7.0% [53 mmol/mol] in the preceding year) from 30 primary care practices participated. The intervention included implementation of CCM elements and involvement of practice nurses in the care of type 2 diabetes patients. Primary outcome was HbA 1c levels. The secondary outcomes were blood pressure (BP), LDL cholesterol, accordance with CCM (assessed by Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care [PACIC] questionnaire), and quality of life (assessed by the 36-item short-form health survey ). RESULTSAfter 1 year, HbA 1c levels decreased significantly in both groups with no significant difference between groups (20.05% [20.60 mmol/mol]; P = 0.708). Among intervention group patients, systolic BP (23.63; P = 0.050), diastolic BP (24.01; P < 0.001), LDL cholesterol (20.21; P = 0.033), and PACIC subscores (P < 0.001 to 0.048) significantly improved compared with control group patients. No differences between groups were shown in the SF-36 subscales. CONCLUSIONSA chronic care approach according to the CCM and involving practice nurses in diabetes care improved the cardiovascular risk profile and is experienced by patients as a better structured care. Our study showed that care according to the CCM can be implemented even in small primary care practices, which still represent the usual structure in most European health care systems.

A regimen of prolonged ganciclovir or valganciclovir prophylaxis decreased the rate of active CMV infection and disease, reduced the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, and improved the survival rate. Drug-resistant CMV strains may occur, but such strains appeared to have no impact on the outcome of CMV-related events.

BackgroundDiabetes is a major challenge for the health care system and especially for the primary care provider. The Chronic Care Model represents an evidence-based framework for the care for chronically ill. An increasing number of studies showed that implementing elements of the Chronic Care Model improves patient relevant outcomes and process parameters. However, most of these findings have been performed in settings different from the Swiss health care system which is dominated by single handed practices.Methods/DesignCARAT is a cluster randomized controlled trial with general practitioners as the unit of randomization (trial registration: ISRCTN05947538). The study challenges the hypothesis that implementing several elements of the Chronic Care Model via a specially trained practice nurse improves the HbA1c level of diabetes type II patients significantly after one year (primary outcome). Furthermore, we assume that the intervention increases the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended targets regarding blood pressure (<130/80), HbA1c (=<6.5%) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (<2.6 mmol/l), increases patients' quality of life (SF-36) and several evidence-based quality indicators for diabetes care. These improvements in care will be experienced by the patients (PACIC-5A) as well as by the practice team (ACIC). According to the power calculation, 28 general practitioners will be randomized either to the intervention group or to the control group. Each general practitioner will include 12 patients suffering from diabetes type II. In the intervention group the general practitioner as well as the practice nurse will be trained to perform care for diabetes patients according to the Chronic Care Model in teamwork. In the control group no intervention will be applied at all and patients will be treated as usual. Measurements (pre-data-collection) will take place in months II-IV, starting in February 2010. Follow-up data will be collected after 1 year.DiscussionThis study challenges the hypothesis that the Chronic Care Model can be easily implemented by a practice nurse focused approach. If our results will confirm this hypothesis the suggestion arises whether this approach should be implemented in other chronic diseases and multimorbid patients and how to redesign care in Switzerland.

BackgroundEmergency Departments (ED) in Switzerland are faced with increasing numbers of patients seeking non-urgent treatment. The high rate of walks-ins with conditions that may be treated in primary care has led to suggestions that those patients would best cared for in a community setting rather than in a hospital. Efficient reorganisation of emergency care tailored to patients needs requires information on the patient populations using the various emergency services currently available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between the characteristics of walk-in patients seeking treatment at an ED and those of patients who use traditional out-of-hours GP (General Practitioner) services provided by a GP-Cooperative (GP-C).MethodsIn 2007 and 2009 data was collected covering all consecutive patient-doctor encounters at the ED of a hospital and all those occurring as a result of contacting a GP-C over two evaluation periods of one month each. Comparison was made between a GP-C and the ED of the Waid City Hospital in Zurich. Patient characteristics, time and source of referral, diagnostic interventions and mode of discharge were evaluated. Medical problems were classified according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2). Patient characteristics were compared using non-parametric tests and multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to investigate independent determinants for contacting a GP-C or an ED.ResultsOverall a total of 2974 patient encounters were recorded. 1901 encounters were walk-ins and underwent further analysis (ED 1133, GP-C 768). Patients consulting the GP-C were significantly older (58.9 vs. 43.8 years), more often female (63.5 vs. 46.9%) and presented with non-injury related medical problems (93 vs. 55.6%) in comparison with patients at the ED. Independent determining factors for ED consultation were injury, male gender and younger age. Walk-in distribution in both settings was equal over a period of 24 hours and most common during daytime hours (65%).Outpatient care was predominant in both settings but significantly more so at the GP-C (79.9 vs. 85.7%).ConclusionsWe observed substantial differences between the two emergency settings in a non gate-keeping health care system. Knowledge of the distribution of diagnoses, their therapy, of diagnostic measures and of the factors which determine the patients' choice of the ED or the GP-C is essential for the efficient allocation of resources and the reduction of costs.