Objectives: This investigation was undertaken to study the costs of a Case Method Learning (CML) -supported lipid-lowering strategy in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) in primary care.

Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial in primary care with an additional external specialist control group in Södertälje, Stockholm County, Sweden, included 255 consecutive patients with CAD. Guidelines were mailed to all general practitioners (GPs; n=54) and presented at a common lecture. GPs who were randomized to the intervention group participated in recurrent CML dialogues at their primary health-care centers during a 2-year period. A locally well-known cardiologist served as a facilitator. Assessment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was performed at baseline and after 2 years. Analysis according to intention-to-treat—intervention and control groups (n=88)—was based on group affiliation at baseline. The marginal cost of lipid lowering comprised increased cost of lipid-lowering drugs in the intervention group compared with the primary care control group, cost of attendance of the GP's in the intervention group, and cost of time for preparation, travel, and seminars of the facilitator. Costs are as of 2002 with an exchange rate 1 US$=9.5 SEK (Swedish Crowns).

Results: Patients in the primary care intervention group had their LDL cholesterol reduced by 0.5 (confidence interval [CI], 0.1–0.9) mmol/L compared with the primary care control group (p<.05). No change occurred in controls. LDL cholesterol in the external specialist control group decreased by 0.6 (CI, 0.4–0.8) mmol/L. The cost of the educational intervention represented only 2 percent of the drug cost. The cost of lipid lowering in the intervention group, including the cost of the educational intervention, was actually lower than that of patients treated at the specialist clinic—106 US$ per mmol decrease in LDL cholesterol in the intervention group and 153 US$ per mmol decrease in LDL cholesterol in the specialist group. EuroQol 5D Index, which gives an estimate of global health-related quality of life, was 0.80 (CI, 0.75–0.85) in the present cohort.

Conclusions: The additional cost of CML was only 2 percent of the drug cost. Assuming the same gain in life expectancy per millimole decrease in LDL cholesterol as in the 4S-study gives a cost per gained quality-adjusted life year of US$ 24,000. This finding indicates that the CML-supported lipid-lowering strategy is cost-effective. The low cost of CML in primary care should probably warrant its use in the improvement of the quality of care in other major chronic diseases.

Health care systems throughout the world are faced with continuously rising health care expenditure. In Germany, a fee per capita system will be introduced by 2003 to keep the budgets for hospital care within limits. As a result, numbers of hospital beds and hospitals will be cut in the coming years. On the other hand, more and more patients and health care providers are asking if they are really receiving an adequate value for their money in the treatment they receive. All this will have a strong impact on the anaesthesiologist's work and her/his perception of the different facets of quality.

Quality has various aspects for the anaesthesiologist. The patient as a customer should not incur any detrimental effects after a surgical procedure, and is accompanied by the anaesthesiologist throughout the perioperative setting. The surgeon needs optimal conditions to perform a procedure. The hospital must balance equally costs and income; this requires optimal operating room utilization. Finally, health insurance companies and the government are responsible for covering the cost of treatment according to the quality of the care delivered.

Quality assessment concerning structure, process and outcome has to take these demands into account. Continuous quality improvement in the spirit of Deming's ‘plan-do-check-act cycle’ has to be part of anaesthesiologist's everyday routine. In future, the traditional barriers between the specialities treating a patient will be disrupted when reimbursement for treatment is made according to quality and efficacy of treatment.

Difficult airway management represents a challenge in anaesthesia. In the last decades airway difficulty awareness has improved as a result of better anticipation and decision-making. Airway algorithms and protocols have a more prominent role in training and in clinical anaesthesia practice. In addition, several new instruments and therefore new techniques have been developed. These have improved possibilities for the clinician to secure the airway. Clinicians should become familiar with this equipment and techniques by using them on a regular basis in elective cases. The instruments available must be selected by the characteristics of the patient population, the local circumstances and the experience of the anaesthesiologist. The aim of this paper is to provide some practical guidelines with respect to airway difficulty predictors and airway instrument choice.

Asian nations differ from one another in population, cultural background, ethnic tradition and economic situation. The training of otorhinolaryngologistsin Asia is not in any way uniform. A questionnaire survey of 26 leading institutions in 12 countries/regions was carried out. The emphasis of investigation is towards the training programme for specialists in Otorhinolaryngology and continuous medical education (CME). The response rate of the survey was 100 per cent. The duration of training for otorhinolaryngologists ranges from three to seven years and an exit assessment is held in seven countries/regions. The training programmes are modifications of either the British or the American pattern depending on tradition. Documentation of CME is available in eight countries/regions while a defined cycle has been established in only three. Medical/health authorities or professional societies in each country contribute towards its monitoring. Better communication and sharing of experience will improve the training of otorhinolaryngologists in Asia.

Objectives: To develop and evaluate a new model of continuing medical education (CME) for general practitioners (GPs). The study is part of the joint European Drug Education Project (DEP). This paper presents the Swedish part regarding the design of the evaluation study, the educational methodology, and the participants' evaluation.

Methods: An educational model was developed. Two peer group discussions (facilitated by a GP/pharmacist team), including individual feedback on the GPs' judgments of written simulated cases and prescribing, were main components. The model was tested in a parallel randomized controlled study including 36 GP groups, allocated to education on asthma or urinary tract infections. Background and outcome data were knowledge and attitudes (K/A) assessed by a questionnaire and prescribing practices for actual and written simulated cases. The GPs' evaluation of the model was captured through a questionnaire.

Results: All 36 groups completed the program. The mean participation rate in the group discussions was 75%. The response rates were 82–98% regarding background, 60–83% regarding outcome data (K/A questionnaire and written cases), and 80% regarding the evaluation questionnaire. Prescribing data were captured for 99% of the GPs. Both group discussions were considered important by 84–89%. Eighty-seven percent wished to take part in similar CME activities for other conditions. About 80% reported that their purpose in participating had been fulfilled.

Conclusions: It was feasible to evaluate the developed educational model by using a two-armed parallel study design. The model was well received by the participants.