Management of Migraine and the Accessibility of Specialist Care – Findings from a Multi-national Assessment of 28 Healthcare Networks

Q4 Medicine
Pinay Kainth, N. Murphy, S. Rossi, Jean-Noël Talabardon, M. Pedrazzoli, Leonardo Mascagni, Irene Menarini, Dublin Ireland Novartis Ireland Limited, Basel Switzerland Novartis Pharma Ag
{"title":"Management of Migraine and the Accessibility of Specialist Care – Findings from a Multi-national Assessment of 28 Healthcare Networks","authors":"Pinay Kainth, N. Murphy, S. Rossi, Jean-Noël Talabardon, M. Pedrazzoli, Leonardo Mascagni, Irene Menarini, Dublin Ireland Novartis Ireland Limited, Basel Switzerland Novartis Pharma Ag","doi":"10.17925/ENR.2018.13.2.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Migraine is one of the leading reasons for patient access to neurology services. Waiting lists can limit patients’ ability to access specialist care, even at specialised headache centres. Our study aims to investigate this issue, identify possible root causes and also document existing good practices. Methods: We conducted a study in a sample of 28 headache centres and their networks in six countries by performing in-depth interviews with 166 healthcare professionals. Results: The waiting list for new patients and follow-up visits exceeded 3 months in 61% and 36% of centres, respectively. Patients waited on average 6 months for their first consultation, with peaks beyond 12 months. Five areas were identified as common root causes: (1) inappropriate referral of patients with low-frequency episodic migraine or patients under acute treatment, (2) lack of triage/priority allocation, (3) limited resource availability or resources dedicated to migraine, (4) limited delegation of activities, and (5) suboptimal management of follow-up visits. Conclusion: Our work highlights a gap between best practices for migraine management proposed in the literature and current real-world practice. Guidelines recommend a “network” approach to bridge different levels of care. Based on our findings, consistency in practice amongst specialised headache clinics and integration with primary care represent an important area for further improvement.","PeriodicalId":12047,"journal":{"name":"European neurological review","volume":"13 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European neurological review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17925/ENR.2018.13.2.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Introduction: Migraine is one of the leading reasons for patient access to neurology services. Waiting lists can limit patients’ ability to access specialist care, even at specialised headache centres. Our study aims to investigate this issue, identify possible root causes and also document existing good practices. Methods: We conducted a study in a sample of 28 headache centres and their networks in six countries by performing in-depth interviews with 166 healthcare professionals. Results: The waiting list for new patients and follow-up visits exceeded 3 months in 61% and 36% of centres, respectively. Patients waited on average 6 months for their first consultation, with peaks beyond 12 months. Five areas were identified as common root causes: (1) inappropriate referral of patients with low-frequency episodic migraine or patients under acute treatment, (2) lack of triage/priority allocation, (3) limited resource availability or resources dedicated to migraine, (4) limited delegation of activities, and (5) suboptimal management of follow-up visits. Conclusion: Our work highlights a gap between best practices for migraine management proposed in the literature and current real-world practice. Guidelines recommend a “network” approach to bridge different levels of care. Based on our findings, consistency in practice amongst specialised headache clinics and integration with primary care represent an important area for further improvement.
偏头痛的管理和专科护理的可及性——来自28个医疗保健网络的多国评估结果
简介:偏头痛是患者获得神经病学服务的主要原因之一。等候名单可能限制患者获得专科护理的能力,即使是在专门的头痛中心。我们的研究旨在调查这个问题,找出可能的根本原因,并记录现有的良好实践。方法:我们对6个国家的28个头痛中心及其网络进行了一项研究,对166名医疗保健专业人员进行了深入访谈。结果:61%的中心新患者的等待时间超过3个月,36%的中心随访时间超过3个月。患者第一次咨询平均等待6个月,高峰超过12个月。五个方面被确定为常见的根本原因:(1)低频发作性偏头痛患者或急性治疗患者的不适当转诊,(2)缺乏分流/优先分配,(3)有限的资源可用性或专门用于偏头痛的资源,(4)有限的活动授权,以及(5)随访管理不理想。结论:我们的工作突出了文献中提出的偏头痛管理最佳实践与当前现实世界实践之间的差距。指南建议采用“网络”方法来衔接不同层次的护理。根据我们的研究结果,专业头痛诊所的一致性和与初级保健的结合是进一步改进的重要领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European neurological review
European neurological review Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信