Objective: Most medications are prescribed, dispensed, and administered in ambulatory care settings, yet little information exists on the adverse effects of drugs in this setting. This review was conducted to estimate the prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs) and the proportion of preventable ADEs in ambulatory care settings; compare data for different age groups including children, adults, and elderly patients; and review drug classes most commonly associated with ADEs. Data Sources: Four electronic databases–PubMed (1966-March 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-March 2011), EMBASE (1980-March 2011), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1993-March 2011)—were systematically searched for published data. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched individually for additional relevant studies. Study Selection: A standardized definition of an ADE was used to select studies in populations living in the community, with medical visits to primary care facilities, nonspecialty ambulatory care facilities, and/or admissions to a hospital for medication-related adverse events. Data Extraction: Data were extracted using a standardized table. Forty-three studies met our inclusion criteria. Data Synthesis: The median ADE prevalence rate for retrospective studies was 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.3-7.1%) vs 9.65% (IQR 3.3-17.35%) for prospective studies. Median preventable ADE rates in ambulatory care–based studies were 16.5%, and 52.9% for hospital-based studies. Median prevalence rates by age group ranged from 2.45% for children to 5.27% for adults, 16.1% for elderly patients, and 3.45% for studies including all ages. Conclusions: Despite a recent increase in publications on ADEs in the ambulatory care setting, most studies remain hospital based. Notable differences in prevalence rates by age groups and by responsible drug categories provide guidance on how to direct attention toward effective targets for improvement of medication safety in ambulatory care settings.

PURPOSE We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations.

The patients’ active participation in their medical care is important for patients with chronic diseases. Measurements of patient activation are needed for studies and in clinical practice. This study aims to validate the Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13-D) in German-speaking primary care patients. This international cross-sectional multicentre study enrolled consecutively patients from primary care practices in three German-speaking countries: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Patients completed the PAM13-D questionnaire. General Self-Efficacy scale (GSE) was used to assess convergent validity. Furthermore Cronbach’s alpha was performed to assess internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate the underlying factor structure of the items. We included 508 patients from 16 primary care practices in the final analysis. Results were internally consistent, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. Factor analysis revealed one major underlying factor. The mean values of the PAM13-D correlated significantly (r = 0.43) with those of the GSE. The German PAM13 is a reliable and valid measure of patient activation. Thus, it may be useful in primary care clinical practice and research.

Background/objective: Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation. We aimed to study the epidemiology of chest pain with respect to underlying aetiologies and to establish pre-work-up probabilities for the primary care setting. Methods: We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain, aged 35 years and older, attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow-up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided on the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Results: The prevalence of chest pain among all attending patients was 0.7%. The majority (55.9%) of patients were women. Mean age was 59 (35–93) years. Of these patients, 53.2% had chest pains at the time of consultation and 29.6% presented with acute (<48 hours’ duration) chest pain. Pain originating from the chest wall was diagnosed in 46.6% of all patients, stable ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in 11.1%, and psychogenic disorders in 9.5%; 3.6% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Conclusion: The study adds important information about the epidemiology of chest pain as a frequent reason for consulting primary care practitioners. We provide updated pre-work-up probabilities for IHD for each age and sex category.

The growing recognition of care fragmentation is causing many countries to explore new approaches to healthcare delivery that can bridge the boundaries between professions, providers and institutions and so better support the rising number of people with chronic health problems. This paper examines the role of the regulatory, funding and organisational context for the development and implementation of approaches to chronic care, using examples from Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the three countries have implemented a range of policies and approaches to achieve better coordination within and across the primary and secondary care interface and so better meet the needs of patients with chronic conditions. This has involved changes to the regulatory framework to support more coordinated approaches to care (Austria, Germany), coupled with financial incentives (Austria, Germany) or changes in payment systems (the Netherlands). What is common to the three countries is the comparative ‘novelty’ of policies and approaches aimed at fostering coordinated care; however, the evidence of their impact remains unclear.