Evaluating a risk factor checklist and training video for GPs as a means of reducing practice variation in referral for glue ear.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN17594119

Enrollment

Registered

2004-01-23

Start date

1997-02-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2015-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Glue ear

Interventions

Each practice was randomised to one of the following groups: 1. Control 2. Video only 3. Checklist only 4. Video and checklist.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Fifty general practices from Trent Region and the West of Scotland were recruited into a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Does not match inclusion criteria

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Overall mean GP and practice referral rates for OME or related conditions remained stable, simplifying the comparisons related to intervention. There was no reduction in variability amongst practices receiving any intervention, compared with practices receiving none. In those receiving both the video and checklist compared with those receiving only one or no intervention, there was a significant improvement in the quality of referrals, as given by more referrals having bilateral HL >20 dB when sent at ENT (ANCOVA for linear trend assuming 0, 1, 2 interventions and adjusting for the period the child waited to be seen at ENT; p = 0.010). No difference was found between the intervention and non-intervention groups in parent satisfaction scores. However, irrespective of intervention group, parents of children who received more information from their GP about glue ear had higher satisfaction scores than those that did not (p = 0.022). Disseminating information on glue ear to GPs in a multi-channel approach can improve the quality of referrals to ENT but appears to make little impact on the parent¿s satisfaction with the information provided by their GP. Much of the variation in GP glue ear referrals and ENT consultants¿ VT insertion rates is still not accounted for, reducing the ability to produce suggestions on how best to compress it. This study provides a worthwhile basis for further large-scale work using such interventions, particularly when used in combination with one another, provided the appropriate outcome measures are used including the patient¿s perspective.	—

Measure

Time frame

Overall mean GP and practice referral rates for OME or related conditions remained stable, simplifying the comparisons related to intervention. There was no reduction in variability amongst practices receiving any intervention, compared with practices receiving none. In those receiving both the video and checklist compared with those receiving only one or no intervention, there was a significant improvement in the quality of referrals, as given by more referrals having bilateral HL >20 dB when sent at ENT (ANCOVA for linear trend assuming 0, 1, 2 interventions and adjusting for the period the child waited to be seen at ENT; p = 0.010). No difference was found between the intervention and non-intervention groups in parent satisfaction scores. However, irrespective of intervention group, parents of children who received more information from their GP about glue ear had higher satisfaction scores than those that did not (p = 0.022). Disseminating information on glue ear to GPs in a multi-channel approach can improve the quality of referrals to ENT but appears to make little impact on the parent¿s satisfaction with the information provided by their GP. Much of the variation in GP glue ear referrals and ENT consultants¿ VT insertion rates is still not accounted for, reducing the ability to produce suggestions on how best to compress it. This study provides a worthwhile basis for further large-scale work using such interventions, particularly when used in combination with one another, provided the appropriate outcome measures are used including the patient¿s perspective.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Not provided at time of registration	—

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026