The reference values support the interpretation of 1-min STS test performance and identification of subjects with decreased lower body muscular strength and endurance.

Exercise tests are important to characterise chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and predict their prognosis, but are often not available outside of rehabilitation or research settings. Our aim was to assess the predictive performance of the sit-to-stand and handgrip strength tests.The prospective cohort study in Dutch and Swiss primary care settings included a broad spectrum of patients (n=409) with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages II to IV. To assess the association of the tests with outcomes, we used Cox proportional hazards (mortality), negative binomial (centrally adjudicated exacerbations) and mixed linear regression models (longitudinal health-related quality of life) while adjusting for age, sex and severity of disease.The sit-to-stand test was strongly (adjusted hazard ratio per five more repetitions of 0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.85; p=0.004) and the handgrip strength test moderately strongly (0.84, 95% CI 0.72–1.00; p=0.04) associated with mortality. Both tests were also significantly associated with health-related quality of life but not with exacerbations. The sit-to-stand test alone was a stronger predictor of 2-year mortality (area under curve 0.78) than body mass index (0.52), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (0.61), dyspnoea (0.63) and handgrip strength (0.62).The sit-to-stand test may close an important gap in the evaluation of exercise capacity and prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients across practice settings.

Background: Although cardiovascular prediction rules are recommended by guidelines to evaluate global cardiovascular risk for primary prevention, they are rarely used in primary care. Little is known about barriers for application. The objective of this study was to evaluate barriers impeding the application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary prevention.

The COMCOLD index reflects the combined impact of five important comorbidities from patients' perspective and complements existing comorbidity indices that predict death. It may help clinicians focus on comorbidities affecting patients' health status the most.

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.