Changes in healthcare utilisation during implementation of remote atrial fibrillation management: TeleCheck-AF project.

AIM: To evaluate changes in healthcare utilisation and comprehensive packages of care activities and procedures (referred in the Netherlands to as 'diagnose-behandelcombinatie (DBC) care products) during the implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach (teleconsultation supported by app-based heart rate/rhythm monitoring) in a Dutch atrial fibrillation (AF) clinic. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ AF Clinic, data on healthcare utilisation and DBC care products for patients consulted by both a conventional approach in 2019 and the TeleCheck-AF approach in 2020 were analysed. A patient experience survey was performed. Thirty-seven patients (median age 68 years; 40% women) were analysed. With the conventional approach, 35 face-to-face consultations and 0 teleconsultations were conducted. After the implementation of TeleCheck-AF, the number of face-to-face consultations dropped by 80% (p < 0.001) and teleconsultations increased to 45 (p < 0.001). While 42 electrocardiograms (ECGs) and 25 Holter ECGs or echocardiograms were recorded when using the conventional approach, the number of ECGs decreased by 71% (p < 0.001) and Holter ECGs or echocardiograms by 72% (p < 0.001) with the TeleCheck-AF approach. The emergency department patient presentations showed no statistically significant change (p = 0.33). Overall, 57% of medium-weight DBC care products were changed to light-weight ones during implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach. Patient satisfaction with the TeleCheck-AF approach was high. CONCLUSION: The implementation of TeleCheck-AF led to a change in healthcare utilisation, a change from medium-weight to light-weight DBC care products and a reduction in patient burden. These results created the basis for a new reimbursement code for the TeleCheck-AF approach in the Netherlands.

Difficult medical encounters in oncology: What physicians need. An exploratory study.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess how often-medical oncology professionals encounter difficult consultations and if they desire support in the form of training. Methods: In February 2022, a survey on difficult medical encounters in oncology, training and demographics was set up. The survey was sent to 390 medical oncology professionals part of the OncoZON network of the Southeast region of the Netherlands. Results: Medical oncology professionals perceive a medical encounter as difficult when there is a dominant family member (n = 27), insufficient time (n = 24), or no agreement between medical professional and patient (n = 22). Patients involved in these encounters are most often characterized with low health literacy (n = 12) or aggressive behavior (n = 10). The inability to comprehend difficult medical information or perceived difficult behavior complicates encounters. Of the medical oncology professionals, 27-44% preferred a training as a physical group meeting (24%) or an individual virtual meeting (19%). Conclusion: Medical oncology professionals consider dominant or aggressive behavior and the inability to comprehend medical information by patients during consultations as difficult encounters for which they would appreciate support. Innovation: Our results highlight concrete medical encounters in need of specific education programs within daily oncology practice.

Substitution or addition: An observational study of a new primary care initiative in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: In 2014, the Primary Care Plus (PC+) model was introduced in the Netherlands to shift low-complex specialised care from the hospital to the primary care setting. While positive effects of PC+ have been documented at individual patient level concerning health-related quality of life, perceived quality of care and care costs, its impacts on service use at the population level remain uncertain. METHODS: In this observational study, we used retrospective health insurance reimbursement claims data from the largest health insurer in the intervention region to determine service use. We assessed PC+ and secondary care insurance claims (i.e. claims of the regional hospital and claims of other secondary care settings in and outside the region visited by patients from the intervention region) from 2015 to 2018 and compared these to the national level. RESULTS: The total number of claims related to low-complex specialised care in the intervention region showed an increase over time. The increase in claims was related to PC+. The number of claims related to the regional hospital and other secondary care settings decreased over time. During the same period, a declining trend in claims at the national level was observed. CONCLUSION: The introduction of the PC+ model in one region in the Netherlands was associated with an increase in the use of low-complex specialised care. This suggests that the ability of the PC+ model to substitute for specialist care at population level may be limited. Going forward, it will be important to continue monitoring and evaluating service use as substitution effects may materialise only over a longer timeframe.

Positive Health and the happy professional: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care professionals (PCPs) face mounting pressures associated with their work, which has resulted in high burn-out numbers. Increasing PCPs' job satisfaction is proposed as a solution in this regard. Positive Health (PH) is an upcoming, comprehensive health concept. Among others, this concept promises to promote PCPs' job satisfaction. However, there is limited research into PH's effects on this topic. This study, therefore, aims to provide insight into how adopting PH in a general practice affects PCPs' job satisfaction. METHODS: An ethnographic case study was conducted in a Dutch general practice that is currently implementing PH. Data collected included 11 semi-structured interviews and archival sources. All data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three themes regarding PCPs' adoption of PH and job satisfaction, namely [1] adopting and adapting Positive Health, [2] giving substance to Positive Health in practice, and [3] changing financial and organizational structures. Firstly, the adoption of PH was the result of a match between the practice and the malleable and multi-interpretable concept. Secondly, PH supported PCPs to express, legitimize, and promote their distinctive approach to care work and its value. This strengthened them to further their holistic approach to health and stimulate autonomy in practice, with respect to both patients and professionals. Thirdly, the concept enabled PCPs to change their financial and organizational structures, notably freeing time to spend on patients and on their own well-being. This allowed them to enact their values. The changes made by the practice increased the job satisfaction of the PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: PH contributed to the job satisfaction of the PCPs of the general practice by functioning as an adaptable frame for change. This frame helped them to legitimize and give substance to their vision, thereby increasing job satisfaction. PH's malleability allows for the frame's customization and the creation of the match. Simultaneously, malleability introduces ambiguity on what the concept entails. In that regard, PH is not a readily implementable intervention. We recommend that other organizations seeking to adopt PH consider whether they are willing and able to make the match and explore how PH can help substantiate their vision.

Economic Evaluation of New Models of Care: Does the Decision Change Between Cost-Utility Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis?

OBJECTIVES: To experiment with new approaches of collaboration in healthcare delivery, local authorities implement new models of care. Regarding the local decision context of these models, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may be of added value to cost-utility analysis (CUA), because it covers a wider range of outcomes. This study compares the 2 methods using a side-by-side application. METHODS: A new Dutch model of care, Primary Care Plus (PC+), was used as a case study to compare the results of CUA and MCDA. Data of patients referred to PC+ or care-as-usual were retrieved by questionnaires and administrative databases with a 3-month follow-up. Propensity score matching together with generalized linear regression models was used to reduce confounding. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: Although both methods indicated PC+ as the dominant alternative, complementary differences were observed. MCDA provided additional evidence that PC+ improved access to care (standardized performance score of 0.742 vs 0.670) and that improvement in health-related quality of life was driven by the psychological well-being component (standardized performance score of 0.710 vs 0.704). Furthermore, MCDA estimated the budget required for PC+ to be affordable in addition to preferable (€521.42 per patient). Additionally, MCDA was less sensitive to the utility measures used. CONCLUSIONS: MCDA may facilitate an auditable and transparent evaluation of new models of care by providing additional information on a wider range of outcomes and incorporating affordability. However, more effort is needed to increase the usability of MCDA among local decision makers.

Patients' perspectives on a new delivery model in primary care: A propensity score matched analysis of patient-reported outcomes in a Dutch cohort study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). METHODS: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.

Reorganising dermatology care: predictors of the substitution of secondary care with primary care.

BACKGROUND: The substitution of healthcare is a way to control rising healthcare costs. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention of the Dutch 'Blue Care' pioneer site aims to achieve this feat by facilitating consultations with medical specialists in the primary care setting. One of the specialties involved is dermatology. This study explores referral decisions following dermatology care in PC+ and the influence of predictive patient and consultation characteristics on this decision. METHODS: This retrospective study used clinical data of patients who received dermatology care in PC+ between January 2015 and March 2017. The referral decision following PC+, (i.e., referral back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care) was the primary outcome. Stepwise logistic regression modelling was used to describe variations in the referral decisions following PC+, with patient age and gender, number of PC+ consultations, patient diagnosis and treatment specialist as the predicting factors. RESULTS: A total of 2952 patients visited PC+ for dermatology care. Of those patients with a registered referral, 80.2% (N = 2254) were referred back to the GP, and 19.8% (N = 558) were referred to outpatient hospital care. In the multivariable model, only the treating specialist and patient's diagnosis independently influenced the referral decisions following PC+. CONCLUSION: The aim of PC+ is to reduce the number of referrals to outpatient hospital care. According to the results, the treating specialist and patient diagnosis influence referral decisions. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to discuss and improve specialist and patient profiles for PC+ to further optimise the effectiveness of the initiative.

Referral decisions and its predictors related to orthopaedic care. A retrospective study in a novel primary care setting.

Due to the ageing population, the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders will continue to rise, as well as healthcare expenditure. To overcome these increasing expenditures, integration of orthopaedic care should be stimulated. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention aimed to achieve this by facilitating collaboration between primary care and the hospital, in which specialised medical care is shifted to a primary care setting. The present study aims to evaluate the referral decision following orthopaedic care in PC+ and in particular to evaluate the influence of diagnostic tests on this decision. Therefore, retrospective monitoring data of patients visiting PC+ for orthopaedic care was used. Data was divided into two periods; P1 and P2. During P2, specialists in PC+ were able to request additional diagnostic tests (such as ultrasounds and MRIs). A total of 2,438 patients visiting PC+ for orthopaedic care were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the referral decision following PC+ (back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care). Independent variables were consultation- and patient-related predictors. To describe variations in the referral decision, logistic regression modelling was used. Results show that during P2, significantly more patients were referred back to their GP. Moreover, the multivariable analysis show a significant effect of patient age on the referral decision (OR 0.86, 95% CI = 0.81-0.91) and a significant interaction was found between the treating specialist and the period (p = 0.015) and between patient's diagnosis and the period (p ≤ 0.001). Despite the significant impact of the possibility of requesting additional diagnostic tests in PC+, it is important to discuss the extent to which the availability of diagnostic tests fits within the vision of PC+. In addition, selecting appropriate profiles for specialists and patients for PC+ are necessary to further optimise the effectiveness and cost of care.

Does the implementation of a care pathway for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis lead to fewer diagnostic imaging and referrals by general practitioners? A pre-post-implementation study of claims data.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) is of good quality, but there is room for improvement regarding the efficient use of diagnostic imaging and conservative treatment. Therefore a stepped-care approach, in the shape of the care pathway 'Better exercise in osteoarthritis', was implemented to reduce the number of diagnostic imaging requested by GPs and referrals of GPs to orthopaedic care. METHODS: In 2015, the pathway is implemented with the use of educational meetings, distributing guidelines and incorporating reminders in the GPs' referral application. To evaluate the effect of the pathway on the diagnostic and referral behaviour of GPs, hip and knee related health insurance claims are used together with claims of other joints and of a control region for comparison. The average number of claims and the percentage change in the post-implementation period are described. Binary logistic regression analysis is used to examine the interaction between region (intervention and control) and period (pre- and post-implementation). Using random sampling of patient records, information about the practical application of the pathway and the number of hip or knee arthroplasties is added. RESULTS: In both regions, the number of diagnostic imaging decreased and the number of initial orthopaedic consultations increased during the post-implementation period. Significant interaction effects were found in knee-related diagnostics (p ≤ 0.001) and diagnostics of other joints (p = 0.039). No significant interaction effects were found in hip-related diagnostics (p = 0.060) and in initial orthopaedic consultation claims of hip (p = 0.979), knee (p = 0.281), and other joints (p = 0.464). Being referred according to the pathway had no significant effect on the probability of undergoing arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the pathway had a positive effect on GPs diagnostic behaviour related to the knee, but not to the hip. The referral behaviour of GPs to orthopaedic care needs attention for future interventions and research, since an increase (instead of a desired decrease) in the number of initial orthopaedic consultations was found. Focusing on the entire width of care for hip and knee OA could be helpful.

Substitution of outpatient hospital care with specialist care in the primary care setting: A systematic review on quality of care, health and costs.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting. METHOD: The systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible. RESULTS: A total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design.

Substitution of hospital care with Primary Care Plus: differences in referral patterns according to specialty, specialist and diagnosis group.

BACKGROUND: Primary Care Plus (PC+) is an intervention where patients consult specialists in a primary care setting outside the hospital. Two facilities have been founded in the city of Maastricht, the Netherlands. Main aim is to achieve substitution of hospital care with primary care and hence reduce costs. The objective of this study is to evaluate referral patterns per specialty, specialist and diagnosis group, as input for deliberations to optimise substitution. METHODS: Prospectively collected referral data after PC+ consultations between November 2014 and March 2016 was analysed for eight participating specialties. Primary outcomes were differences in referral patterns per specialty, specialist and diagnosis group. Absolute counts and percentages were recorded for categorical variables, means and standard deviations for continuous variables. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). RESULTS: In total 4536 patients were seen in PC+; 3132 (69.0%) were referred back to the general practitioner (GP), whereas 1275 (28.1%) were referred to secondary care. Referral information of 130 (2.9%) patients was unknown. Large differences in referral numbers to secondary care after PC+ consultation were found between specialties (from 8.6% (gynaecology) to 43.8% (orthopaedic surgery)), specialists (14.5 to 65.2%) and diagnosis groups (11.1 to 93.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in referral numbers to secondary care between specialties, specialists and diagnosis groups exists after PC+ consultations. This data indicates that deliberation and further research is needed in order to optimize substitution initiatives like PC+.

Substituting hospital-based outpatient cardiology care: The impact on quality, health and costs.

BACKGROUND: Many Western countries face the challenge of providing high-quality care while keeping the healthcare system accessible and affordable. In an attempt to deal with this challenge a new healthcare delivery model called primary care plus (PC+) was introduced in the Netherlands. Within the PC+ model, medical specialists perform consultations in a primary care setting. PC+ aims to support the general practitioners in gatekeeping and prevent unnecessary referrals to hospital care. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a cardiology PC+ intervention on the Triple Aim outcomes, which were operationalized by patient-perceived quality of care, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, and healthcare costs per patient. METHODS: This is a quantitative study with a longitudinal observational design. The study population consisted of patients, with non-acute and low-complexity cardiology-related health complaints, who were referred to the PC+ centre (intervention group) or hospital-based outpatient care (control group; care-as-usual). Patient-perceived quality of care and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS and SF-12) were measured through questionnaires at three different time points. Healthcare costs per patient were obtained from administrative healthcare data and patients were followed for nine months. Chi-square tests, independent t-tests and multilevel linear models were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The patient-perceived quality of care was significantly higher within the intervention group for 26 out of 27 items. HRQoL outcomes did significantly increase in both groups (P <0.05) but there was no significant interaction between group and time. At baseline and also at three, six and nine months' follow-up the healthcare costs per patient were significantly lower for patients in the intervention group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While this study showed no improvements on HRQoL outcomes, PC+ seemed to be promising as it results in improved quality of care as experienced by patients and lower healthcare costs per patient.

Measuring Population Health from a Broader Perspective: Assessing the My Quality of Life Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Population health perspectives increasingly focus on people's perception of resilience, ability to adapt and self-manage. The goal of this study is to determine whether the MijnKwaliteitVanLeven.nl ("MyQualityOfLife.nl") survey is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the broader health perspectives at population level. METHODS: 19,809 entries of the MyQualityOfLife.nl survey were used. To assess face validity, Huber's six dimensions of positive health were used as a framework for expert feedback. A confirmative factor analyses was done using the expert's item clustering, followed by data-driven explorative factor analyses and reliability tests. RESULTS: Experts distributed 74 of the 118 items over all six dimensions of positive health. The confirmatory factor analysis model based on expert classification was not confirmed. The subsequent exploratory factor analysis excluded most items based on factor loading and suggested two factors; 'quality of life' and 'daily functioning', both showing excellent reliability. CONCLUSION: The MyQualityOfLife.nl survey can assess the broader concept of health in a population as well as 'quality of life' and 'daily functioning'. However, the survey can currently not evaluate several of the positive health dimensions separately. Further research is needed to determine whether this is due to the instrument or the positive health dimensions.

Harvesting the wisdom of the crowd: using online ratings to explore care experiences in regions.

BACKGROUND: Regional population health management (PHM) initiatives need an understanding of regional patient experiences to improve their services. Websites that gather patient ratings have become common and could be a helpful tool in this effort. Therefore, this study explores whether unsolicited online ratings can provide insight into (differences in) patient's experiences at a (regional) population level. METHODS: Unsolicited online ratings from the Dutch website Zorgkaart Nederland (year = 2008-2017) were used. Patients rated their care providers on six dimensions from 1 to 10 and these ratings were geographically aggregated based on nine PHM regions. Distributions were explored between regions. Multilevel analyses per provider category, which produced Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), were performed to determine clustering of ratings of providers located within regions. If ratings were clustered, then this would indicate that differences found between regions could be attributed to regional characteristics (e.g. demographics or regional policy). RESULTS: In the nine regions, 70,889 ratings covering 4100 care providers were available. Overall, average regional scores (range = 8.3-8.6) showed significant albeit small differences. Multilevel analyses indicated little clustering between unsolicited provider ratings within regions, as the regional level ICCs were low (ICC pioneer site < 0.01). At the provider level, all ICCs were above 0.11, which showed that ratings were clustered. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited online provider-based ratings are able to discern (small) differences between regions, similar to solicited data. However, these differences could not be attributed to the regional level, making unsolicited ratings not useful for overall regional policy evaluations. At the provider level, ratings can be used by regions to identify under-performing providers within their regions.

Shifting hospital care to primary care: An evaluation of cardiology care in a primary care setting in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to deal with the pressures on the healthcare system and to guarantee sustainability, changes are needed. This study is focused on a cardiology Primary Care Plus intervention in which cardiologists provide consultations with patients in a primary care setting in order to prevent unnecessary referrals to the hospital. This study explores which patients with non-acute and low-complexity cardiology-related health complaints should be excluded from Primary Care Plus and referred directly to specialist care in the hospital. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study based on quantitative data. Data collected between January 1 and December 31, 2015 were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Logistic regression analyses were used to select patient groups that should be excluded from referral to Primary Care Plus. RESULTS: In total, 1525 patients were included in the analyses. Results showed that male patients, older patients, those with the referral indication 'Stable Angina Pectoris' or 'Dyspnoea' and patients whose reason for referral was 'To confirm disease' or 'Screening of unclear pathology' had a significantly higher probability of being referred to hospital care after Primary Care Plus. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve efficiency one should exclude patient groups with a significantly higher probability of being referred to hospital care after Primary Care Plus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6629 (Data registered: 25-08-2017) (registered retrospectively).

Does an in-house internist at a GP practice result in reduced referrals to hospital-based specialist care?

OBJECTIVE: Consistent evidence on the effects of specialist services in the primary care setting is lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of an in-house internist at a GP practice on the number of referrals to specialist care in the hospital setting. Additionally, the involved GPs and internist were asked to share their experiences with the intervention. DESIGN: A retrospective interrupted times series study. SETTING: Two multidisciplinary general practitioner (GP) practices. INTERVENTION: An internist provided in-house patient consultations in two GP practices and participated in the multidisciplinary meetings. SUBJECTS: The referral data extracted from the electronic medical record system of the GP practices, including all referral letters from the GPs to specialist care in the hospital setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of referrals to internal medicine in the hospital setting. This study used an autoregressive integrated moving average model to estimate the effect of the intervention taking account of a time trend and autocorrelation among the observations, comparing the pre-intervention period with the intervention period. RESULTS: It was found that the referrals to internal medicine did not statistically significant decrease during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: This small explorative study did not find any clues to support that an in-house internist at a primary care setting results in a decrease of referrals to internal medicine in the hospital setting. Key Points An in-house internist at a primary care setting did not result in a significant decrease of referrals to specialist care in the hospital setting. The GPs and internist experience a learning-effect, i.e. an increase of knowledge about internal medicine issues.

How to Measure Population Health: An Exploration Toward an Integration of Valid and Reliable Instruments.

Population health management initiatives are introduced to transform health and community services by implementing interventions that combine various services and address the continuum of health and well-being of populations. Insight is required into a population's health to evaluate implementation of these initiatives. This study aims to determine the performance of commonly used instruments for measuring a population's experienced health and explores the assessed concepts of population health. Survey-based Short Form 12, version 2 (SF12, health status), Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13), and Kessler 10 (K10, psychological distress) data of 3120 respondents was used. Floor/ceiling effects were studied using descriptive statistics. Validity was assessed using factor and discriminant analyses, and reliability was assessed using Cronbach α. Finally, to study covered concepts, exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted, which included additional surveyed characteristics. The SF12 and PAM13 sum scores showed acceptable averages and distributions, while results of the K10 indicated a floor effect. SF12 and K10 measured their expected constructs, while PAM13 did not. The EFA of PAM13 displayed 1 instead of the expected 4 constructs. Reliability was good for all instruments (α 0.89-0.93). The overall EFA identified 4 concepts: mental, physical ability, lifestyle, and self-management. SF12 and PAM13, combined with lifestyle characteristics, are shown to provide insightful information to measure the physical, mental, lifestyle, and self-management concepts of population health. Future research should include additional instruments that cover new aspects introduced by recent definitions of health.

Evaluating a Dutch cardiology primary care plus intervention on the Triple Aim outcomes: study design of a practice-based quantitative and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to deal with the pressures on the health-care system and to guarantee sustainability, changes are needed. This study focuses on a cardiology primary care plus intervention. Primary care plus (PC+) is a new health-care delivery model focused on substitution of specialist care in the hospital setting with specialist care in the primary care setting. The intervention consists of a cardiology PC+ centre in which cardiologists, supported by other health-care professionals, provide consultations in a primary care setting. The PC+ centre aims to improve the health of the population and quality of care as experienced by patients, and reduce the number of referrals to hospital-based outpatient specialist care in order to reduce health-care costs. These aims reflect the Triple Aim principle. Hence, the objectives of the study are to evaluate the cardiology PC+ centre in terms of the Triple Aim outcomes and to evaluate the process of the introduction of PC+. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a practice-based, quantitative study with a longitudinal observational design, and an additional qualitative study to supplement, interpret and improve the quantitative study. The study population of the quantitative part will consist of adult patients (≥18 years) with non-acute and low-complexity cardiology-related health complaints, who will be referred to the cardiology PC+ centre (intervention group) or hospital-based outpatient cardiology care (control group). All eligible patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at three different time points consisting of questions about their demographics, health status and experience of care. Additionally, quantitative data will be collected about health-care utilization and related health-care costs at the PC+ centre and the hospital. The qualitative part, consisting of semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and observations, is designed to evaluate the process as well as to amplify, clarify and explain quantitative results. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate a cardiology PC+ centre using quantitative and supplementary qualitative methods. The findings of both sub-studies will fill a gap in knowledge about the effects of PC+ and in particular whether PC+ is able to pursue the Triple Aim outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6629 (Data registered: 25-08-2017) (registered retrospectively).

Substitution of outpatient care with primary care: a feasibility study on the experiences among general practitioners, medical specialists and patients.

BACKGROUND: Reinforcing the gatekeeping role of general practitioners (GPs) by embedding specialist knowledge into primary care is seen as a possibility for stimulating a more sustainable healthcare system and avoiding unnecessary referrals to outpatient care. An intervention called Primary Care Plus (PC+) was developed to achieve these goals. The objective of this study is to gain insight into: (1) the content and added value of PC+ consultations according to stakeholders, and (2) patient satisfaction with PC+ compared to outpatient care. METHODS: A feasibility study was conducted in the southern part of the Netherlands between April 2013 and January 2014. Data was collected using GP, medical specialist and patient questionnaires. Patient characteristics and medical specialty data were collected through the data system of a GP referral department. RESULTS: GPs indicated that they would have referred 85.4 % of their PC+ patients to outpatient care in the hypothetical case that PC+ was not available. Medical specialists indicated that about one fifth of the patients needed follow-up in outpatient care and 75.9 % of the consultations were of added value to patient care. The patient satisfaction results appear to be in favour of PC+. CONCLUSION: PC+ seems to be a feasible intervention to be implemented on a larger scale, because it has the potential to prevent unnecessary hospital referrals. PC+ will be evaluated on a larger scale regarding the effects on health outcomes, quality of care and costs (Triple Aim principle).