BMJ  2004;328:388 (14 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.38009.706319.47 (published 6 February 2004)

Primary care

Practice based education to improve delivery systems for prevention in primary care: randomised trial

¹ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina Center for Children's Healthcare Improvement, 730 Airport Rd, Ste 104, CB#7226, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA, ² University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Administration, Chapel Hill, ³ Rho Inc, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA, ⁴ Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA

Abstract

Objective To examine the effectiveness of an intervention that combined continuing medical education with process improvement methods to implement "office systems" to improve the delivery of preventive care to children.

Design Randomised trial in primary care practices.

Setting Private paediatric and family practices in two areas of North Carolina.

Participants Random sample of 44 practices allocated to intervention and control groups.

Intervention Practice based continuing medical education in which project staff coached practice staff in reviewing performance and identifying, testing, and implementing new care processes (such as chart screening) to improve delivery of preventive care.

Main outcome measure Change over time in the proportion of children aged 24-30 months who received age appropriate care for four preventive services (immunisations, and screening for tuberculosis, anaemia, and lead).

Results The proportion of children per practice with age appropriate delivery of all four preventive services changed, after a one year period of implementation, from 7% to 34% in intervention practices and from 9% to 10% in control practices. After adjustment for baseline differences in the groups, the change in the prevalence of all four services between the beginning and the end of the study was 4.6-fold greater (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 13.2) in intervention practices. Thirty months after baseline, the proportion of children who were up to date with preventive services was higher in intervention than in control practices; results for screening for tuberculosis (54% v 32%), lead (68% v 30%), and anaemia (79% v 71%) were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion Continuing education combined with process improvement methods is effective in increasing rates of delivery of preventive care to children.

Introduction

Preventive services are the cornerstone of primary care for children. Yet rates of preventive services such as immunisations¹ and screening for anaemia, tuberculosis, lead, and vision defects are disappointingly low. Recent studies have shown that better "office systems" can improve the delivery of preventive care.² Office systems are defined as an organised series of interrelated activities carried out by several members of staff to achieve a specific purpose (for example, billing). Office systems for prevention are focused on interactions of patients, staff, and clinicians, ensuring that each step of the process of preventive care is carried out for every eligible patient at every encounter. The primary hypothesis for our study was that practices that received continuing medical education (CME) in combination with process improvement methods to implement office systems would have higher rates of four core preventive services than practices that did not.

Methods

Recruitment and randomisation of practices
We identified all 453 paediatric and family practices in two regions of North Carolina located near practice assistance teams at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Charlotte Area Health Education Center.

We randomly selected practices from those meeting the eligibility criteria (see bmj.com) and stratified by factors potentially predictive of the success of the intervention: type of practice (paediatric/family practice), number of newborns enrolled each month, annual Medicaid billing. Within each stratum, we randomised practices to either an intervention group, in which practices received assistance to establish office systems for prevention, or a control group.

Intervention
We have described an intervention that used practice based CME and process improvement methods to support the implementation of "office systems" for delivery of preventive care.³ The intervention was based on the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle of process improvement.⁴

In the first step, practices formed an improvement team of clerical, nursing, and physician staff members and discussed the results of chart abstractions.

In the second step, project staff provided education about preventive care and effective delivery strategies for preventives services (for example, developing a preventive services summary, establishing a tracking or recall system⁵). Practices selected performance improvement goals and identified strategies that might improve care.⁶ We provided an organised set of tools (for example, preventive services flow sheets) to test the changes that were made, and project staff helped practices to customise these tools.

During the third step, project staff helped practices use repeated PDSA cycles in small samples of patients to understand how to adapt new approaches to current office routines. In the fourth step, changes that had the desired effect on the process of preventive care after testing were spread throughout the practice by training staff in new roles.

Two teams consisting of a trained nurse and doctor helped to carry out the intervention. These teams met with practices monthly over a year, using a defined curriculum. During the subsequent year, we checked in on each practice by telephone every two to three months to discuss problems with the logistical aspects of implementation, and to offer advice and support to overcome them.

Outcome measures
Before the study, we selected four preventive services (immunisations, and screening for anaemia, lead, and tuberculosis) that are generally recommended by authoritative organisations for children in the first two years of life The services we chose tend to be well documented in patients' records. Tuberculosis screening consisted of testing for intradermal purified protein derivative or giving the Mantoux test, or risk assessment by 24 months of age; anaemia screening consisted of a complete cell count, packed cell volume, or haemoglobin concentration, or a risk assessment by 18 months of age; screening for environmental lead exposure consisted of a blood test or risk assessment by 24 months of age. A complete immunisation schedule comprised four injections of diphtheria-pertussistetanus vaccine; three oral polio vaccines; one measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation; three Haeomphylus influenzae type B vaccines; and three hepatitis B vaccines by 24 months of age.

The primary outcome measure was the change over time in the proportion of children in each practice who received all four of these services.

Data collection
We abstracted data from medical records, using repeated, random samples of 30 charts of children between 24 and 30 months of age in each practice, and from surveys of doctors and office staff administered at baseline and at the end of the study period.³ Patients who had been seen at least three times and for whom there was no evidence of having transferred out of the practice were eligible. Abstractors were not informed of the study arm to which each practice was assigned.

We used the data from medical records to give feedback to intervention practices about their performance, including comparison with all other practices, every six months. Control group practices received feedback at baseline and annually for two years without comparison with other practices. Follow up of intervention practices was planned for 15-18 months after the 12 month intervention.

Statistical analysis
All our analyses were intention to treat. To compare the magnitude and pattern of change over time in delivery of preventive service between intervention and control practices, we fitted a logistic random regression model.⁷

Feedback of results from abstraction from charts at baseline typically took place in a meeting three months after baseline data collection from charts. We selected nine months after the feedback meeting as the earliest point at which changes in performance could be detected. All chart abstractions before this point (12 months after baseline data collection) were designated "implementation" points; all points after this mark were designated follow up. "Implementation" and follow up points in control practices were not considered separately.

We compared the change in the proportion of children per practice with age appropriate preventive services over four time intervals: after the implementation period (at 12 months), and 18, 24, and 30 months after the baseline chart abstraction.

Results

Practices and characteristics
We randomised 44 practices. Figure 1 shows the recruitment and flow of practices through the trial. Randomisation produced intervention and control practices with comparable baseline rates of preventive services (table 1) and practice characteristics (see bmj.com). Practices in both groups employed between 1 and 12 doctors, and most were in metropolitan areas. Control practices were twice as likely to be physician owned. Only about 11% of children across all practices had all four preventive services documented in their charts; lead and tuberculosis screening were particularly low.

View larger version (51K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1 Recruitment process. *The five practices "not asked to participate" were not selected for recruitment because the target sample size had been achieved.

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1 Mean (SD) percentage of patients with age appropriate preventive services in intervention and control practices at baseline

 

Implementation of intervention
Practices in the intervention group were followed for an average of 24 months after the beginning of the intervention. During the implementation period, all intervention practices developed improvement teams. Project teams met with practice improvement teams a median 8.5 times (range 5-14 times). Of the 22 intervention practices, 18 (82%) implemented preventive services summaries in patient charts, 17 (77%) used tools to support risk assessments, 15 (68%) used prompting by clinicians, and 7 (32%) instituted new health maintenance records for well child visits.

Effectiveness of intervention
Figure 2 shows the pattern of change over time in the proportion of children per practice with all four preventive services in intervention and control groups. During the implementation period the slopes of the lines did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (P = 0.11). During the follow up period, the proportion of children with all services in control practices remained relatively constant, changing from 0.09 at the start of the follow up period to only 0.10 after 30 months of follow up. In contrast, the proportion of children with all services in intervention practices increased from 0.07 to 0.34 over the same time period. The change in the prevalence of all four services between the beginning and the end of the study was 4.6-fold greater (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 13.2) in intervention practices than in control practices (table 2).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2 Proportion of children with up to date records of all four preventive services

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2 Effect of the intervention on primary study outcome: proportion of children with all age appropriate preventive services in intervention and control practices during follow up period

 

The intervention had the greatest impact on lead, tuberculosis, and anaemia screening (fig 3). At the end of the follow up period, the proportion of children per practice who had a record of receiving each of the four individual preventive services was higher in intervention than in control practices; differences for tuberculosis (54% v 32%), lead (68% v 30%), and anaemia (79% v 71%) screening were significant (P < 0.05). For immunisation rates, the improvement over 30 months was about the same in intervention practices and control practices.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 3 Proportion of children with up to date information on individual preventive services

 

Discussion

A continuing education programme designed to assist primary care practices in testing and implementing "office systems" for preventive health care produced clinically and statistically significant improvement in rates of preventive care for children.

A growing body of literature suggests that continuing medical education based on the way care is delivered in the practice setting can affect the outcomes of care delivery.⁸ However, efforts to help practices implement office systems have produced mixed results. In a randomised trial, Dietrich et al found that in primary care practices that implemented office systems, the performance of mammography and clinical breast examinations improved significantly.⁹ Subsequent attempts to introduce office systems to improve preventive care for adults have been unsuccessful.^{10 11} Reasons for the limited impact of such interventions include the size and complexity of practices involved, staff turnover, using a suboptimal quality improvement model that placed too much emphasis on planning rather than testing changes, insufficient emphasis on measurement to determine if changes were resulting in improvement, lack of motivation to change, inadequately developed content materials, inexperienced improvement team leaders, and insufficient time for improvement activities.¹² Using a formal practice assessment, a practice-wide meeting, and prevention tools, and giving feedback on performance every six months, Goodwin et al reported a small but statistically significant increase in rates of preventive services.¹³

We used a somewhat different approach, working side by side with the office team, providing information and coaching to each practice to develop improvement expertise within the practice. This avoided the loss of performance associated with "train the trainer" models¹⁴ because it did not depend on novice leaders during what was often their first application of improvement methods. We emphasised frequent, small scale tests to enable practices to "try out" changes without risking disruption of practice routines. The provision of tools and materials allowed practices to concentrate on improving care, and the emphasis on measurement encouraged practices to learn from their data, thereby engendering trust in the process.

Limitations
This study has several limitations. We selected practices that provided care for relatively large numbers of children in order to be able to detect an intervention effect. Small paediatric practices and most family practices were excluded. Although this may limit the generalis-ability of the study to multi-physician settings, such environments tend to be more complex and thus stand to benefit more from quality improvement efforts.

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children within each practice who received all four age appropriate services. Some clinicians may not have agreed that all procedures were necessary; some children may not have been exposed to practice changes; and some services may have been provided without being documented. The increased use of blood and skin testing, as well as risk factor screening, suggests that improvements did not represent improved documentation alone.

What is already known on this topic Most preventive services are recommended for children under 5 years of age, but rates for their delivery in primary care are lower than desired Better "office systems" for preventive care seem to be associated with improved care, but efforts to help practices implement such systems have produced mixed results Continuing medical education based on the way care is delivered in the practice setting can affect the outcomes of care delivery What this study adds Practice oriented continuing education, combined with process improvement methods, can improve systems for delivery of preventive care in primary care Improvements in office systems are associated with important improvements in rates of preventive care

Immunisation rates did not improve significantly, but at the time the study was conducted North Carolina implemented a universal vaccine purchase programme. It became the state with the highest rates of immunisations in the United States.¹⁵

Conclusion
This study shows that continuing education oriented to improving primary care practices' systems for delivery of care is associated with important improvements in preventive care. Our findings are potentially important for current efforts to incorporate performance improvement and systems thinking as a core competency for physicians and other health professionals. The next step will be to reduce the costs of assistance and to disseminate new approaches to more practices more rapidly. Future studies should also explore how to further increase the reliability of care, magnify the rate of improvement, and sustain improvements.

The trial was a collaboration involving the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC); the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance; North Carolina Office of Research, Demonstrations, and Rural Health; Carolinas Medical Center; and the NC Area Health Education Centers. We wish to recognise the leadership of the North Carolina Office of Rural Health, Research and Demonstrations (Jeffrey Simms, Burnie Patterson), the North Carolina Area Health Education Centers (Harry Gallis, Thomas Bacon), and the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance (Dennis Williams) without whose vision and persistence this study would not have been possible. We are indebted to the practice assistance teams at the Charlotte Area Health Education Center (Laura Noonan, Patricia Nesbit, Dawn Carpenter) and the North Carolina Office of Rural Health, Research and Demonstrations (Carol Powell, Deborah Shah), who provided assistance to the participating practices. We also thank the staff of the North Carolina Center for Children's Healthcare Improvement at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Sarah McGovern, Jennifer Pearce, Jenny Bowes) who participated in curriculum development, training, and data collection and Laura Peterson, who helped with preparation of the manuscript. Most importantly, we wish to recognise the dedication of the primary care practices without whose participation this study would not have been possible.

---

This is the abridged version of an article that was posted on bmj.com on 6 February 2004: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38009.706319.47

Contributors: See bmj.com

Funding: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (RO1-HS08509), US Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (RO1-HS08509), the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance, the North Carolina Area Health Education Centers, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Generalist Faculty Scholars Program.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethical approval: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ethics committee.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control. National, state, and urban area vaccination coverage levels among children aged 19-35 months. United States, 2000. MMWR 2001;50; 637-41.[Medline]
2. Leininger LS, Finn L, Dickey L, Dietrich AJ, Foxhall L, Garr D, et al. An office system for organizing preventive services: a report by the American Cancer Society Advisory Group on Preventive Health Care Reminder Systems. Arch Fam Med 1996;5: 108-15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Carey TS, Kinsinger L, Keyserling T, Harris R. Research in the community: recruiting and retaining practices. J Community Health 1996;21: 315-27.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Langley GK, Nolan T, Nolan C, Norman, Provost L. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
5. Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach (`academic detailing') to improve clinical decision making. JAMA 1990;263: 549-56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Hulscher ME, Wensing M, Grol RP, van der Weijden T, van Weel C. Interventions to improve the delivery of preventive services in primary care. Am J Public Health 1999;89: 737-46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Norman EH, Bordley WC, Hertz-Picciotto I, Newton DA. Rural-urban blood lead differences in North Carolina children. Pediatrics 1994;1: 59-64..
8. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE. Continuing medical education and the physician as a learner: guide to the evidence. JAMA 2002;288: 1057-60.[Free Full Text]
9. Dietrich AJ, O'Connor GT, Keller A, Carney PA, Levy D, Whaley FS. Cancer: improving early detection and prevention: a community practice randomised trial. BMJ 1992;304: 687-91.
10. Dietrich AJ, Tobin JN, Sox CH, Cassels AN, Negron F, Younge RG, et al. Cancer early-detection services in community health centers for the undeserved. A randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med 1998;7: 320-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Solberg LI, Kottke TE, Brekke ML, Magnan S, Davidson G, Calomeni CA, et al. Failure of a continuous quality improvement intervention to increase the delivery of preventive services. A randomized trial. Effective Clin Pract 2000;3: 105-15.
12. Solberg LI, Kottke TE, Brekke M, Magnan S. Improving prevention is difficult. Effective Clin Pract 2000;3: 153-5.
13. Goodwin MA, Zyzanski SJ, Zronek S, Ruhe M, Weyer SM, Konrad N, et al. A clinical trial of tailored office systems for preventive service delivery. The study to enhance prevention by understanding practice (STEP-UP). Am J Prev Med 2001;21: 20-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14. Deming EW. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1977: 330.
15. National Partnership for Immunization. North Carolina immunization rates. www.partnersforimmunization.org/PPT/northcarolina.pdf (accessed 1 Apr 2003).

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Medical education research remains the poor relation

Mathew Todres, Anne Stephenson, and Roger Jones
BMJ 2007 335: 333-335. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Practice based education increases delivery of preventive health care to children
BMJ 2004 328: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Profit, J., Cambric-Hargrove, A. J., Tittle, K. O., Pietz, K., Stark, A. R. (2009). Delayed Pediatric Office Follow-up of Newborns After Birth Hospitalization. Pediatrics 124: 548-554 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Davis, D., Galbraith, R. (2009). Continuing Medical Education Effect on Practice Performance: Effectiveness of Continuing Medical Education: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines. Chest 135: 42S-48S [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rubenstein, L V, Hempel, S, Farmer, M M, Asch, S M, Yano, E M, Dougherty, D, Shekelle, P W (2008). Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 403-408 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Newton, W. P. (2008). Improving Performance in Prevention. J Am Board Fam Med 21: 258-260 [Full text]  
• Mold, J. W., Aspy, C. A., Nagykaldi, Z. (2008). Implementation of Evidence-Based Preventive Services Delivery Processes in Primary Care: An Oklahoma Physicians Resource/Research Network (OKPRN) Study. J Am Board Fam Med 21: 334-344 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lannon, C. M., Flower, K., Duncan, P., Moore, K. S., Stuart, J., Bassewitz, J. (2008). The Bright Futures Training Intervention Project: Implementing Systems to Support Preventive and Developmental Services in Practice. Pediatrics 122: e163-e171 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gallis, H. A. (2008). Quality Improvement and Continuing Education in Dental Practice. Journal of the American Dental Association 139: 656-659 [Full text]  
• Darden, P. M., Taylor, J. A., Brooks, D. A., Hendricks, J.W., Massoudi, M., Stevenson, J. M., Bocian, A. B. (2008). How Should Immunization Rates Be Measured in the Office Setting? A Study from PROS and NMA PedsNet. CLIN PEDIATR 47: 252-260 [Abstract]  
• Flores, A. I., Bilker, W. B., Alessandrini, E. A. (2008). Effects of Continuity of Care in Infancy on Receipt of Lead, Anemia, and Tuberculosis Screening. Pediatrics 121: e399-e406 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Barlow, S. E., and the Expert Committee, (2007). Expert Committee Recommendations Regarding the Prevention, Assessment, and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity: Summary Report. Pediatrics 120: S164-S192 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Davis, M. M., Gance-Cleveland, B., Hassink, S., Johnson, R., Paradis, G., Resnicow, K. (2007). Recommendations for Prevention of Childhood Obesity. Pediatrics 120: S229-S253 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Boom, J. A., Nelson, C. S., Laufman, L. E., Kohrt, A. E., Kozinetz, C. A. (2007). Improvement in Provider Immunization Knowledge and Behaviors Following a Peer Education Intervention. CLIN PEDIATR 46: 706-717 [Abstract]  
• Boonyasai, R. T., Windish, D. M., Chakraborti, C., Feldman, L. S., Rubin, H. R., Bass, E. B. (2007). Effectiveness of Teaching Quality Improvement to Clinicians: A Systematic Review. JAMA 298: 1023-1037 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Epstein, J. N., Rabiner, D., Johnson, D. E., FitzGerald, D. P., Chrisman, A., Erkanli, A., Sullivan, K. K., March, J. S., Margolis, P., Norton, E. C., Conners, C. K. (2007). Improving Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Outcomes Through Use of a Collaborative Consultation Treatment Service by Community-Based Pediatricians: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161: 835-840 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mercier, C. E., Barry, S. E., Paul, K., Delaney, T. V., Horbar, J. D., Wasserman, R. C., Berry, P., Shaw, J. S. (2007). Improving Newborn Preventive Services at the Birth Hospitalization: A Collaborative, Hospital-Based Quality-Improvement Project. Pediatrics 120: 481-488 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Zolotor, A. J., Randolph, G. D., Johnson, J. K., Wegner, S., Edwards, L., Powell, C., Esporas, M. H. (2007). Effectiveness of a Practice-Based, Multimodal Quality Improvement Intervention for Gastroenteritis Within a Medicaid Managed Care Network. Pediatrics 120: e644-e650 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Todres, M., Stephenson, A., Jones, R. (2007). Medical education research remains the poor relation. BMJ 335: 333-335 [Full text]  
• Shaw, J. S., Wasserman, R. C., Barry, S., Delaney, T., Duncan, P., Davis, W., Berry, P. (2006). Statewide Quality Improvement Outreach Improves Preventive Services for Young Children. Pediatrics 118: e1039-e1047 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Young, P. C., Glade, G. B., Stoddard, G. J., Norlin, C. (2006). Evaluation of a Learning Collaborative to Improve the Delivery of Preventive Services by Pediatric Practices. Pediatrics 117: 1469-1476 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Willigendael, E. M, Teijink, J. A., Bartelink, M.-L., Langenberg, M., Welten, R. J., Buller, H. R, Prins, M. H (2005). Combined training of GPs and practice-assistants on peripheral arterial disease: positive effects after six months. Fam Pract 22: 520-522 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Randolph, G., Fried, B., Loeding, L., Margolis, P., Lannon, C. (2005). Organizational Characteristics and Preventive Service Delivery in Private Practices: A Peek Inside the "Black Box" of Private Practices Caring for Children. Pediatrics 115: 1704-1711 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rosenthal, M. S., Lannon, C. M., Stuart, J. M., Brown, L., Miller, W. C., Margolis, P. A. (2005). A Randomized Trial of Practice-Based Education to Improve Delivery Systems for Anticipatory Guidance. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159: 456-463 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Roetzheim, R. G., Christman, L. K., Jacobsen, P. B., Schroeder, J., Abdulla, R., Hunter, S. (2005). Long-term Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Cancer Screening Among Attendees of Community Health Centers. Ann Fam Med 3: 109-114 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lannon, C., Stark, A. R. (2004). Closing the Gap Between Guidelines and Practice: Ensuring Safe and Healthy Beginnings. Pediatrics 114: 494-496 [Full text]  
• (2004). Other articles noted: 06 Feb 2004 to 16 Apr 2004. Evid. Based Nurs. 7: e3-e3 [Full text]  
• Margolis, P. A. (2004). Small Steps and Big Leaps: Implications of the National Survey of Early Childhood Health for Improving the Quality of Preventive and Developmental Care for Young Children. Pediatrics 113: 1988-1990 [Full text]  
• (2004). Other articles noted. Evid. Based Med. 9: 95-96 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Improved delivery or improved documentation

Richard L Davies
bmj.com, 15 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>