Background There is limited evidence about the impact of specific patterns of multi-morbidity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from large samples of adult subjects. Methods We used data from the English General Practice Patient Survey 2011-2012. We defined multi-morbidity as the presence of two or more of 12 self-reported conditions or another (unspecified) long-term health problem. We investigated differences in HRQoL (EQ-5D scores) associated with combinations of these conditions after adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and the presence of a recent illness or injury. Analyses were based on 831,537 responses from patients aged 18 years or older in 8,254 primary care practices in England.Results Of respondents, 23 % reported two or more chronic conditions (ranging from 7 % of those under 45 years of age to 51 % of those 65 years or older). Multimorbidity was more common among women, White individuals and respondents from socio-economically deprived areas. Neurological problems, mental health problems, arthritis and long-term back problem were associated with the greatest HRQoL deficits. The presence of three or more conditions was commonly associated with greater reduction in quality of life than that implied by the sum of the differences associated with the individual conditions. The decline in quality of life associated with an additional condition in people with two and three physical conditions was less for older people than for younger people. Multimorbidity was associated with a substantially worse HRQoL in diabetes than in other long-term conditions. With the exception of neurological conditions, the presence of a comorbid mental health problem had a more adverse effect on HRQoL than any single comorbid physical condition. Conclusion Patients with multi-morbid diabetes, arthritis, neurological, or long-term mental health problems have significantly lower quality of life than other people. People with long-term health conditions require integrated mental and physical healthcare services.

Abstract:The practice of medicine involves inherent ambiguity, arising from limitations of knowledge, diagnostic problems, complexities of treatment and outcome and unpredictability of patient response. Research into doctors' tolerance of ambiguity is hampered by poor conceptual clarity and inadequate measurement scales. We aimed to create and pilot a measurement scale for tolerance of ambiguity in medical students and junior doctors that addresses the limitations of existing scales. After defining tolerance of ambiguity, scale items were generated by literature review and expert consultation. Feedback on the draft scale was sought and incorporated. 411 medical students and 75 Foundation doctors in Exeter, UK were asked to complete the scale. Psychometric analysis enabled further scale refinement and comparison of scale scores across subgroups. The pilot study achieved a 64% response rate. The final 29 item version of the Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (TAMSAD) scale had good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.80). Tolerance of ambiguity was higher in Foundation Year 2 doctors than first, third and fourth year medical students (-5.23,P = 0.012; -5.98, P = 0.013; -4.62, P = 0.035, for each year group respectively). The TAMSAD scale offers a valid and reliable alternative to existing scales. Further work is required in different settings and in longitudinal studies but this study offers intriguing provisional insights.Response to Reviewers: Dear Sir, Thank you for your email providing further feedback on our second draft manuscript.We have now responded to your comments (see table below).We have included a new manuscript both with and without tracked changes. In the tracked changes version we have accepted all format changes and so tracked changes indicate changes to text and tables.We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours faithfully, Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems CorporationJason Hancock (corresponding author) AbstractThe practice of medicine involves inherent ambiguity, arising from limitations of knowledge, diagnostic problems, complexities of treatment and outcome and unpredictability of patient response.Research into doctors' tolerance of ambiguity is hampered by poor conceptual clarity and inadequate measurement scales. We aimed to create and pilot a measurement scale for tolerance of ambiguity in medical students and junior doctors that addresses the limitations of existing scales. After defining tolerance of ambiguity, scale items were generated by literature review and expert consultation.

ObjectivesPatients’ trust in general practitioners (GPs) is fundamental to effective clinical encounters. Associations between patients’ trust and their perceptions of communication within the consultation have been identified, but the influence of patients’ demographic characteristics on these associations is unknown. We aimed to investigate the relative contribution of the patient's age, gender and ethnicity in any association between patients’ ratings of interpersonal aspects of the consultation and their confidence and trust in the doctor.DesignSecondary analysis of English national GP patient survey data (2009).SettingPrimary Care, England, UK.ParticipantsData from year 3 of the GP patient survey: 5 660 217 questionnaires sent to patients aged 18 and over, registered with a GP in England for at least 6 months; overall response rate was 42% after adjustment for sampling design.Outcome measuresWe used binary logistic regression analysis to investigate patients’ reported confidence and trust in the GP, analysing ratings of 7 interpersonal aspects of the consultation, controlling for patients’ sociodemographic characteristics. Further modelling examined moderating effects of age, gender and ethnicity on the relative importance of these 7 predictors.ResultsAmong 1.5 million respondents (adjusted response rate 42%), the sense of ‘being taken seriously’ had the strongest association with confidence and trust. The relative importance of the 7 interpersonal aspects of care was similar for men and women. Non-white patients accorded higher priority to being given enough time than did white patients. Involvement in decisions regarding their care was more strongly associated with reports of confidence and trust for older patients than for younger patients.ConclusionsAssociations between patients’ ratings of interpersonal aspects of care and their confidence and trust in their GP are influenced by patients’ demographic characteristics. Taking account of these findings could inform patient-centred service design and delivery and potentially enhance patients’ confidence and trust in their doctor.

. Both auditory and phonetic processes have been implicated by previous results from selective adaptation experiments using speech stimuli. It has proved difficult to dissociate their individual contributions because the auditory and phonetic structure of conventional acoustical stimuli are mutually predictive. In the present experiment, the necessary dissociation was achieved by using an audiovisualadaptor consisting of an acoustical [bE] synchronized to a video recording of a talker uttering the syllable [gEl. This stimulus was generallyidentifiedas oneof the dentals [dE] or [a E]. It producedan adaptation effect,measuredwith an acoustical[be-ds] test continuum, identical in size and direction to that produced by an acoustical [bEl-an adaptor sharing its acoustical structure-and opposite in direction to that produced by an acoustical [dEl-an adaptor sharing its perceived phonetic identity. Thus, the result strongly suggests that auditory rather than phonetic levels of processing are influenced in selective adaptation.Since the introduction of the selective adaptation paradigm to research on speech perception (Eimas & Corbit, 1973), many questions have been raised concerning the nature and loci of the processes underlying the effects obtained. The paradigm is straightforward. A series of speech sounds varying in some distinctive acoustic parameter is created, usually spanning two phonetic categories. These test syllables are randomized and presented for identification under two conditions. In the baseline condition, the individual syllables are presented for identification in isolation. In the adaptation condition, each test syllable is presented following a number of repetitions of an adapting syllable. In each condition, an ogive is fitted to the identification functions from several presentations of each syllable in a series. The point of response equiprobability, the phoneme boundary, is determined. The position of the boundary in the series usually changes following adaptation, and the size of the change provides a measure of the adaptation effect. When the adaptor is an unambiguous syllablecorrespondingto one or the other of the endpoints of the test continuum, the boundary usually moves toward that syllable. If, for instance, the test series embraces a phonetic contrast in voicing (e.g., [ba-pha]), following adaptation with [ba] a greater proportion of test syllables, particularly in the boundary region, are identified as [phal, and the phoneme boundary shifts toward the [ba] end of the series.Originally, it was proposed (Cooper, 1974;

No abstract

BackgroundThere has been an increased focus towards improving quality of care within the NHS in the last 15 years; as part of this, there has been an emphasis on the importance of patient feedback within policy, through National Service Frameworks and the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The development and administration of large-scale national patient surveys to gather representative data on patient experience, such as the national GP Patient Survey in primary care, has been one such initiative. However, it remains unclear how the survey is used by patients and what impact the data may have on practice.ObjectivesOur research aimed to gain insight into how different patients use surveys to record experiences of general practice; how primary care staff respond to feedback; and how to engage primary care staff in responding to feedback.MethodsWe used methods including quantitative survey analyses, focus groups, interviews, an exploratory trial and an experimental vignette study.Results(1)Understanding patient experience data. Patients readily criticised their care when reviewing consultations on video, although they were reluctant to be critical when completing questionnaires. When trained raters judged communication during a consultation to be poor, a substantial proportion of patients rated the doctor as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Absolute scores on questionnaire surveys should be treated with caution; they may present an overoptimistic view of general practitioner (GP) care. However, relative rankings to identify GPs who are better or poorer at communicating may be acceptable, as long as statistically reliable figures are obtained. Most patients have a particular GP whom they prefer to see; however, up to 40% of people who have such a preference are unable regularly to see the doctor of their choice. Users of out-of-hours care reported worse experiences when the service was run by a commercial provider than when it was run by a not-for profit or NHS provider. (2)Understanding patient experience in minority ethnic groups. Asian respondents to the GP Patient Survey tend to be registered with practices with generally low scores, explaining about half of the difference in the poorer reported experiences of South Asian patients than white British patients. We found no evidence that South Asian patients used response scales differently. When viewing the same consultation in an experimental vignette study, South Asian respondents gave higher scores than white British respondents. This suggests that the low scores given by South Asian respondents in patient experience surveys reflect care that is genuinely worse than that experienced by their white British counterparts. We also found that service users of mixed or Asian ethnicity reported lower scores than white respondents when rating out-of-hours services. (3)Using patient experience data. We found that measuring GP–patient communication at practice level masks variation between how good individual doctors are within a practice. In general practices and in out-of-hours centres, staff were sceptical about the value of patient surveys and their ability to support service reconfiguration and quality improvement. In both settings, surveys were deemed necessary but not sufficient. Staff expressed a preference for free-text comments, as these provided more tangible, actionable data. An exploratory trial of real-time feedback (RTF) found that only 2.5% of consulting patients left feedback using touch screens in the waiting room, although more did so when reminded by staff. The representativeness of responding patients remains to be evaluated. Staff were broadly positive about using RTF, and practices valued the ability to include their own questions. Staff benefited from having a facilitated session and protected time to discuss patient feedback.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the importance of patient experience feedback as a means of informing NHS care, and confirm that surveys are a valuable resource for monitoring national trends in quality of care. However, surveys may be insufficient in themselves to fully capture patient feedback, and in practice GPs rarely used the results of surveys for quality improvement. The impact of patient surveys appears to be limited and effort should be invested in making the results of surveys more meaningful to practice staff. There were several limitations of this programme of research. Practice recruitment for our in-hours studies took place in two broad geographical areas, which may not be fully representative of practices nationally. Our focus was on patient experience in primary care; secondary care settings may face different challenges in implementing quality improvement initiatives driven by patient feedback. Recommendations for future research include consideration of alternative feedback methods to better support patients to identify poor care; investigation into the factors driving poorer experiences of communication in South Asian patient groups; further investigation of how best to deliver patient feedback to clinicians to engage them and to foster quality improvement; and further research to support the development and implementation of interventions aiming to improve care when deficiencies in patient experience of care are identified.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013.Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models.Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores.Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

Recent years have witnessed a rapid increase in the use of zirconium (Zr)-containing compounds in artificial internal organs. Examples include dental implants and other restorative practices, total knee and hip replacement, and middle-ear ossicular chain reconstruction. In nephrological practice, Zr-containing sorbents have been used in hemofiltration, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and in the design and construction of wearable artificial kidneys. Zr compounds continue to be widely and extensively used in deodorant and antiperspirant preparations. In the public health arena, Zr compounds have been studied or used in controlling phosphorus pollution and in the reclamation of poison and bacteria-contaminated water. Experimental and clinical studies support the general consensus that Zr compounds are biocompatible and exhibit low toxicity. Reports on possible Zr-associated adverse reactions are rare and, in general, have not rigorously established a cause-and-effect relationship. Although publications on the use of Zr compounds have continued to increase in recent years, reports on Zr toxicity have virtually disappeared from the medical literature. Nevertheless, familiarity with, and continued vigilant monitoring of, the use of these compounds are warranted. This article provides an updated review on the biomedical use of Zr compounds.