It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.
Methods
We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.
Results
The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.
Conclusions
The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements.
This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Evangelical Hospital Unna, Department of Neurology, Unna, Germany; Bundeswehr Central Hospital Koblenz, Department of Neurology, Koblenz, Germany
2 Evangelical Hospital Unna, Department of Neurology, Unna, Germany; University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Neurology, Essen, Germany (GRID:grid.5718.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2187 5445); EVEX Medical Corporation, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia (GRID:grid.5718.b); IM Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russian Federation (GRID:grid.448878.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2288 8774)
3 Hospital da Luz Headache Center, Lisbon, Portugal (GRID:grid.414429.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 0163 5700)
4 Headache Unit, Riga East Clinical University Hospital, Neurology and Neurosurgery Department, Riga, Latvia (GRID:grid.488518.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0375 2558)
5 Kagıthane Yahya Kemal ASM, Istanbul, Turkey (GRID:grid.488518.8)
6 University of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9511 4342)
7 University of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9511 4342); Hospital Pediátrico, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Centre for Child Development – Neuropediatrics Unit, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.28911.33) (ISNI:0000000106861985)
8 University of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9511 4342); Family Health Unit “Coimbra Centro”, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c)
9 Kartal 10 Nolu ASM Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey (GRID:grid.8051.c)
10 University of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9511 4342); Family Health Unit “Pulsar”, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c)
11 Istanbul University Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Neurology Department, Istanbul, Turkey (GRID:grid.506076.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1797 5496)
12 Esenler Havaalanı ASM, Istanbul, Turkey (GRID:grid.506076.2)
13 Bagcılar Yıldıztepe ASM, Istanbul, Turkey (GRID:grid.488518.8)
14 Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (GRID:grid.5947.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 1516 2393); Imperial College London, Division of Neuroscience, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111)