1 / 29

Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project

Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project. Dr Saul Berkovitz on behalf of CPP members. Introduction / Rationale Methods Results Discussion Conclusions. CPP data collection. Introduction. Little involvement of herbalists in clinical research

jacoba
Télécharger la présentation

Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project Dr Saul Berkovitz on behalf of CPP members

  2. Introduction / Rationale Methods Results Discussion Conclusions CPP data collection

  3. Introduction • Little involvement of herbalists in clinical research • What active contribution can we make as an organisation?

  4. Introduction • Most herbalists work in isolation • Little or no systematic data collection or audit

  5. Introduction • Small group of interested herbalists convened – summer 2008 • Pilot project - Systematic data collection in routine practice

  6. Methods • Minimal data collection • Data collection and entry by practitioners • Every consecutive patient • One month (Nov 2008) • Excel spreadsheet

  7. Methods • Patient data anonymous • Age • Sex • New or follow-up • Conditions (up to three) relevant to consultation • Comment

  8. Methods • Confirmation obtained from UCLH Ethics Committee that patient informed consent / ethics approval not required due to absence of patient-identifiable data

  9. Results • Results collated by SB by merging spreadsheets • Descriptive data only • No outcomes in this phase I project

  10. Results • 17 herbalists agreed to participate • One e-mail address incorrect • 14 /16 herbalists returned data (88%) • 2 herbalists shared one spreadsheet and were counted as one

  11. Results: Number of patients • Number of patients = 383 • 3 herbalists (21%) contributed 234 patients (61%) • Mean number of patients per herbalist = 29 • Median = 14 • Range = 2 to 86, SD 45.5

  12. Number of patients per herbalist

  13. Results: Age and Sex Sex: 126 M, 257 F (M:F ratio 0.49) Age: • Mean 51.5 / Median 54 (range 9m-92y, SD 19.3) • M - Mean 52.2 / Med 57.5 (9m –82y) • F - Mean 51.2 / Med 53 (3-92)

  14. Age and sex of patients

  15. Age distribution – Whipps Cross Dermatology Clinic

  16. Results: N / FU ratio • 90 new appts, 293 FU • Mean N / FU ratio = 0.31 • Median = 0.25 • Range 0-0.75

  17. Results: Conditions seen • Number of different conditions seen = 360 (383 patients) • 1 condition = 79 pts • 2 conditions = 137 pts • 3 conditions = 166 pts • Mean number per patient = 2.2

  18. Results: Condition type

  19. Results: Primary condition type

  20. Condition type: UWM MYMOP

  21. Feedback • 90 new appts, 293 FU • Mean N / FU ratio = 0.31 • Median = 0.25 • Range 0-0.75

  22. Conclusions • Data collection in routine herbal practice appears feasible over a one-month period • Direct electronic data entry by herbalists is feasible • The results are interesting

  23. Usefulness of data • Individual herbalists • Activity • Reflective practice (self-critical approach) • Clinical audit, activity review (CPD) • Outcomes • What are my results in practice?

  24. Usefulness of data • Herbal profession • Professional identity / shared purpose • A ‘map of herbal practice’ • what do we treat? • Patients, conditions (specialisation) • To inform possible research • Routine monitoring of outcomes (PROM’s) • What are our results?

  25. Next steps • Phase II • similar methodology • more CPP members involved • Should we also approach NIMH? • Phase III • longitudinal data collection • including outcomes?

More Related