The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer: Tumor-First or Germline-First?

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing. METHODS: Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated. RESULTS: Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986). CONCLUSIONS: The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.

Struggling with the governance of interprofessional elderly care in mandated collaboratives: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Governing interprofessional elderly care requires the commitment of many different organisations connected in mandated collaboratives. Research over a decade ago showed that the governance relied on clan-based mechanisms, while lacking formal rules and incentives for collaborations. Awareness and reflection were seen as first steps towards progression. We aim to identify critical governance features of contemporary mandated collaboratives by discussing cases introduced by the healthcare professionals and managers themselves. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with two regional mandated collaboratives took place from November 2019 to November 2020 in the Netherlands to learn more about critical governance features. The interviews were thematically analysed by the project team (authors) to synthesise the results and were subsequently validated during a focus group. RESULTS: Critical governance features of interorganisational activities in mandated collaboratives include the gradual formulation of shared vision and clear client-centred goals, building trust and acquaintanceship for the advancement of an open collaborative culture, establishing a non-extreme formalised governance structure through leadership, mutual trust and innovation support and facilitating information exchange and formalisation tools for optimal elderly care. CONCLUSION: Trust and leadership form the backbone of interorganisational functioning. Interorganisational functioning should be seen in light of their national embedment and resources that are (being made) available, which makes them susceptible to constant change as they struggle with balancing between critical features in a fluid and intermingled governance context. The identified critical features of (contemporary) mandated collaboratives may aid in assessing and improving interprofessional functioning within integrated elderly care. International debate on governance expectations of mandated collaboratives may further contribute to sharpening the roles of both managers and healthcare professionals.

Minimally Invasive Intervention for Primary Caries Lesions: Are Dentists Implementing This Concept?

Contemporary minimally invasive treatment concepts for restorative treatment of primary caries lesions include both delayed intervention and smaller-sized preparations restricted to removal of carious tissue. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these concepts have resulted in a trend towards a more conservative choice made by dentists regarding treatment thresholds and restorative techniques. The results from previously conducted, precoded questionnaires developed by Espelid and Tveit, as well as from a recent Dutch questionnaire, were collected and analysed. A worldwide trend towards more minimally invasive strategies in the operative treatment of caries lesions could not be observed, neither for the initiation of operative treatment nor for the preparation techniques. However, in some countries, changes over time could be assessed, especially in Norway, where a reduction in the proportion of interventions is visible for both occlusal and approximal lesions, indicating that more dentists are postponing interventions until the lesions have progressed to a deeper level. From the Dutch national survey, it could be concluded that operators that intervene at an earlier stage of approximal lesioning (stage ≤4) also intervene at an earlier stage of occlusal caries (stage ≤3) (p = 0.012; OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.22-5.22). Generally, it can be concluded that dentists worldwide still tend to operatively intervene at a too early stage of caries, although variations exist between countries. A worldwide shift could be observed in the restorative material applied, since composite resin has almost completely replaced amalgam for restoring primary caries lesions.

Variation in Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care: Impact of Patient and Hospital Characteristics.

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients' perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%-98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%-100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement.

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. METHODS: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: "Why," "On what aspects" and "How" do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? RESULTS: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.

The development of a collective quality system: challenges and lessons learned; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing professionalization of medical education means that quality systems (QSs) aimed at improving medical education also continuously have to improve. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a collective QS for eight Dutch General Practitioner (GP) specialty training institutes to provide insights into the considerations that are involved in developing a QS in medical education. METHODS: Experts in the field of GP education and quality assurance developed the QS. They studied the literature, prior QSs and involved stakeholders. The team interviewed the directors, and all meetings and steps in the development process were transcribed. All interviews and relevant documentation were analyzed. Results were checked by the developers. RESULTS: Stakeholders agreed on the goals, the relevance of the resulting domains, and the methods to assess. However, one major theme emerged. To enable benchmarking, the team developed detailed quantifiable indicators. Especially the development of these indicators gave discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Involving stakeholders was crucial as they directed the development of the QS. The framework of the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) provided guidance in covering all the relevant processes. The major challenge consisted of formulating indicators. Our experience indicates that the process of quantifying indicators is not straightforward. The detailed level of the indicators chosen is perhaps not always suitable for QSs in the field of medical education.

The implementation of a quality system in the Dutch GP specialty training: barriers and facilitators; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Quality assurance programs in medical education are introduced to gain insight into the quality of such programs and to trigger improvements. Although of utmost importance, research on the implementation of such programs is scarce. The Dutch General Practice (GP) specialty training institutes used an implementation strategy to implement a quality system (QS), and we aimed to study the success of this strategy and to learn about additional facilitators and barriers. METHODS: Seventeen structured interviews were conducted with the directors and quality coordinators (QCs) of the eight Dutch GP training institutes. A five-stage process model of implementation was used to structure these interviews and analyze the data. Two researchers analyzed the data with a framework approach. RESULTS: The strategy supported the institutes in implementing the QS. However, after the introduction of the QS, staff experienced the QS as demanding, although they noticed almost no concrete short-term results. Moreover, they experienced difficulties in integrating the QS into their local situation. Collectively working with the QS and following common deadlines did create a sense of commitment towards each other that appeared to be a true stimulus to the introduction of the QS. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategy focused mainly on the introduction of the QS in the GP specialty training, and it was, as such, rather successful. An important barrier concerned the acceptance of the QS and the integration of the QS into local structures, which suggests that there is a need for guidance on the translation of the QS to local contexts. All in all, we recommend more focus on the benefits of a QS.

Inter-practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence amongst older patients in primary care.

PURPOSE: Complex medication management in older people with multiple chronic conditions can introduce practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence. This study aimed to determine the inter-practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence and examine how this variation was influenced by patient and practice characteristics. METHODS: This cohort study included 45,731 patients aged 55 years and older with at least one prescribed medication from 126 general practices that participated in NIVEL Primary Care Database in the Netherlands. Medication dispensing data of the year 2012 were used to determine polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was defined as the chronic and simultaneous use of at least five different medications. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to quantify the polypharmacy prevalence variation between practices. Patient characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, number, and type of chronic conditions) and practice characteristics (practice location and practice population) were added to the models. RESULTS: After accounting for differences in patient and practice characteristics, polypharmacy rates varied with a factor of 2.4 between practices (from 12.4% to 30.1%) and an overall mean of 19.8%. Age and type of conditions were highly positively associated with polypharmacy, and to a lesser extent a lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in polypharmacy rates existed between general practices, even after accounting for patient and practice characteristics, which suggests that there is not much agreement concerning medication management in this complex patient group. Initiatives that could reduce inappropriate heterogeneity in medication management can add value to the care delivered to these patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patient experiences with family medicine: a longitudinal study after the Dutch health care reforms in 2006.

BACKGROUND: In 2006 The Dutch Health Care system changed to a market oriented system. The GP remuneration changed from ± 2/3 capitation patients and 1/3 private patients before 2006 to a mixed payment scheme. From 2006 onward every patient was insured and the GP received partly capitation, partly fees for consultations and for specific services. This change coincided with many other organisational changes in General Practice care. Our research question was if during the years after 2006 patient experiences of Dutch family practice had changed. We also wanted to explore the influence of patient and practice characteristics on patient experiences. Data on patient experiences were available from 2007 to 2012. METHOD: In a series of annual cross sectional patient surveys the performance of GPs and practices was measured. Patient sampling took place as a part of the Dutch accreditation program in 1657 practices involving 2966 GPs. Patients' experiences, gender, age, health status, and number of annual consultations were documented as well as the type and location of practices. Linear regression analysis was used to examine time trends in patient experiences and the impact of patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: 78,985 patients assessed the performance of 2966 GPs, and 45,773 patients assessed the organisation of 1657 practices. The number of patients with positive experiences increased significantly between 2007 and 2012; respectively 4.8 % for GPs (beta 0.20 and p < 0.0001) and 6.6 % for practices (beta 0.10, p < 0.004). Higher age, having no chronic illness, more frequent consultations and attending single-handed practices, predicted better patient experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In our evaluation of patient experiences with general practice care from 2007 to 2012 we found an increase of 4.8 % for GPs and 6.6 % for practices respectively. This improvement is significant. While no direct causation can be made, possible explanations may be found in the various reforms in Dutch family practice since 2006. More insight is needed into key determinants of this improvement before policymakers and care providers can attribute the improvement to these reforms.

Quality of chronic kidney disease management in primary care: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and appropriate management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care are essential to reduce morbidity and mortality. AIM: To assess the quality of care (QoC) of CKD in primary healthcare in relation to patient and practice characteristics in order to tailor improvement strategies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study using data between 2008 and 2011 from 47 general practices (207 469 patients of whom 162 562 were adults). METHOD: CKD management of patients under the care of their general practitioner (GP) was qualified using indicators derived from the Dutch interdisciplinary CKD guideline for primary care and nephrology and included (1) monitoring of renal function, albuminuria, blood pressure, and glucose, (2) monitoring of metabolic parameters, and alongside the guideline: (3) recognition of CKD. The outcome indicator was (4) achieving blood pressure targets. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to identify associated patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Kidney function or albuminuria data were available for 59 728 adult patients; 9288 patients had CKD, of whom 8794 were under GP care. Monitoring of disease progression was complete in 42% of CKD patients, monitoring of metabolic parameters in 2%, and blood pressure target was reached in 43.1%. GPs documented CKD in 31.4% of CKD patients. High QoC was strongly associated with diabetes, and to a lesser extent with hypertension and male sex. CONCLUSION: Room for improvement was found in all aspects of CKD management. As QoC was higher in patients who received structured diabetes care, future CKD care may profit from more structured primary care management, e.g. according to the chronic care model. KEY POINTS: Quality of care for chronic kidney disease patients in primary care can be improved. In comparison with guideline advice, adequate monitoring of disease progression was observed in 42%, of metabolic parameters in 2%, correct recognition of impaired renal function in 31%, and reaching blood pressure targets in 43% of chronic kidney disease patients. Quality of care was higher in patients with diabetes. Chronic kidney disease management may be improved by developing strategies similar to diabetes care.

Data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) for quality measurement of the physical therapy process: comparison between EHR data and survey data.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of the electronic health records (EHRs) as a pervasive healthcare information technology, new opportunities and challenges for use of clinical data for quality measurements arise with respect to data quality, data availability and comparability. The objective of this study is to test whether data extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) was of comparable quality as survey data for the calculation of quality indicators. METHODS: Data from surveys describing patient cases and filled out by physiotherapists in 2009-2010 were used to calculate scores on eight quality indicators (QIs) to measure the quality of physiotherapy care. In 2011, data was extracted directly from EHRs. The data collection methods were evaluated for comparability. EHR data was compared to survey data on completeness and correctness. RESULTS: Five of the eight QIs could be extracted from the EHRs. Three were omitted from the indicator set, as they proved too difficult to be extracted from the EHRs. Another QI proved incomparable due to errors in the extraction software of some of the EHRs. Three out of four comparable QIs performed better (p < 0.001) in EHR data on completeness. EHR data also proved to be correct; the relative change in indicator scores between EHR and survey data were small (<5 %) in three out of four QIs. CONCLUSION: Data quality of EHRs was sufficient to be used for the calculation of QIs, although comparability to survey data was problematic. Standardization is needed, not only to be able to compare different data collection methods properly, but also to compare between practices with different EHRs. EHRs have the option to administrate narrative data, but natural language processing tools are needed to quantify these text boxes. Such development, can narrow the comparability gap between scoring QIs based on EHR data and based on survey data. EHRs have the potential to provide real time feedback to professionals and quality measurements for research, but more effort is needed to create unambiguous and uniform information and to unlock written text in a standardized manner.

Multimorbidity patterns in a primary care population aged 55 years and over.

BACKGROUND: To support the management of multimorbid patients in primary care, evidence is needed on prevalent multimorbidity patterns. OBJECTIVE: To identify the common and distinctive multimorbidity patterns. METHODS: Clinical data of 120480 patients (≥55 years) were extracted from 158 general practices in 2002-11. Prevalence rates of multimorbidity were analyzed (overall, and for 24 chronic diseases), adjusted for practice, number of diseases and patients' registration period; differentiated between patients 55-69 and ≥70 years. To investigate multimorbidity patterns, prevalence ratios (prevalence rate index-disease group divided by that in the non-index-disease group) were calculated for patients with heart failure, diabetes mellitus, migraine or dementia. RESULTS: Multiple membership multilevel models showed that the overall adjusted multimorbidity rate was 86% in patients with ≥1 chronic condition, varying from 70% (migraine) to 98% (heart failure), 38% had ≥4 chronic diseases. In patients 55-69 years, 83% had multimorbidity. Numerous significant prevalence ratios were found for disease patterns in heart failure patients, ranging from 1.2 to 7.7, highest ratio for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-cardiac dysrhythmia. For diabetes mellitus, dementia or migraine patients highest ratios were for heart failure-visual disorder (2.1), heart failure-depression (3.9) and depression-back/neck disorder (2.1), respectively (all P-values<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity management in general practice can be reinforced by knowledge on the clinical implications of the presence of the comprehensive disease patterns among the elderly patients, and those between 55 and 69 years. Guideline developers should be aware of the complexity of multimorbidity. As a consequence of this complexity, it is even more important to focus on what matters to a patient with multimorbidity in general practice.

Quality of physical therapy from a patient's perspective; factor analysis on web-based survey data revealed three dimensions on patient experiences with physical therapy.

BACKGROUND: Assessing quality of care from the patient's perspective has changed from patient satisfaction to the more general term patient experience, as satisfaction measures turned out to be less discriminative due to high scores. Literature describes four to ten dimensions of patient experience, tailored to specific conditions or types of care. Given the administrative burden on patients, less dimensions and items could increase feasibility. Ten dimensions of patient experiences with physical therapy (PT) were proposed in the Netherlands in a consensus-based process with patients, physical therapists, health insurers, and policy makers. The aim of this paper is to detect the number of dimensions from data of a field study using factor analysis at item level. METHODS: A web-based survey yielded data of 2,221 patients from 52 PT practices on 41 items. Principal component factor analysis at item level was used to assess the proposed distinction between the ten dimensions. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed two dimensions: 'personal interaction' and 'practice organisation'. The dimension 'patient reported outcome' was artificially established. The three dimensions 'personal interaction' (14 items) (median(practice level) = 91.1; IQR = 2.4), 'practice organisation' (9 items) (median(practice level) = 88.9; IQR = 6.0) and 'outcome' (3 items) (median(practice level) = 80.6; IQR = 19.5) reduced the number of dimensions from ten to three and the number of items by more than a third. CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis revealed three dimensions and achieved an item reduction of more than a third. It is a relevant step in the development process of a quality measurement tool to reduce respondent burden, increase clarity, and promote feasibility.

Patients' expectations of variation in quality of care relates to their search for comparative performance information.

BACKGROUND: Choice of hospital based on comparative performance information (CPI) was introduced for Dutch healthcare consumers at least 5 years ago, but CPI use has not yet become commonplace. Our aim was to assess the role of patients' expectations regarding variation in the quality of hospital care in determining whether they search for CPI. METHODS: A questionnaire (for a cross-sectional survey) was distributed to 475 orthopaedic patients in a consecutive sample, who underwent primary hip or knee replacement in a university, teaching, or community hospital between September 2009 and July 2010. RESULTS: Of the 302 patients (63%) who responded, 13% reported searching for CPI to help them choose a hospital. People who expected quality differences between hospitals (67%) were more likely to search for CPI (OR =3.18 [95% CI: 1.02-9.89]; p <0.04) than those who did not. Quality differences were most often expected in hospital reputation, distance, and accessibility. Patients who did not search for CPI stated that they felt no need for this type of information. CONCLUSION: Patients' expectations regarding variation in quality of care are positively related to their reported search for CPI. To increase the relevance of CPI for patients, future studies should explore the underlying reasoning of patients about meaningful quality-of-care variation between hospitals.

Evaluating quality indicators for physical therapy in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measurement properties of a set of public quality indicators on physical therapy. DESIGN: An observational study with web-based collected survey data (2009 and 2010). SETTING: Dutch primary care physical therapy practices. PARTICIPANTS: In 3743 physical therapy practices, 11 274 physical therapists reporting on 30 patients each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eight quality indicators were constructed: screening and diagnostics (n= 2), setting target aim and subsequent of intervention (n = 2), administrating results (n = 1), global outcome measures (n = 2) and patient's treatment agreement (n = 1). Measurement properties on content and construct validity, reproducibility, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability of the indicators were assessed using comparative statistics and multilevel modeling. RESULTS: Content validity was acceptable. Construct validity (using known group techniques) of two outcome indicators was acceptable; hypotheses on age, gender and chronic vs. acute care were confirmed. For the whole set of indicators reproducibility was approximated by correlation of 2009 and 2010 data and rated moderately positive (Spearman's ρ between 0.3 and 0.42 at practice level) and interpretability as acceptable, as distinguishing between patient groups was possible. Ceiling effects were assessed negative as they were high to extremely high (30% for outcome indicator 6-95% for administrating results). CONCLUSION: Weaknesses in data collection should be dealt with to reduce bias and to reduce ceiling effects by randomly extracting data from electronic medical records. More specificity of the indicators seems to be needed, and can be reached by focusing on most prevalent conditions, thus increasing usability of the indicators to improve quality of care.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in primary care: an observational pilot study of seven generic instruments.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been introduced in studies to assess healthcare performance. The development of PROMs for primary care poses specific challenges, including a preference for generic measures that can be used across diseases, including early phases or mild conditions. This pilot study aimed to explore the potential usefulness of seven generic measures for assessing health outcomes in primary care patients. METHODS: A total of 300 patients in three general practices were invited to participate in the study, shortly after their visit to the general practitioner. Patients received a written questionnaire, containing seven validated instruments, focused on patient empowerment (PAM-13 or EC-17), quality of life (EQ-5D or SF-12), mental health (GHQ-12), enablement (PEI) and perceived treatment effect (GPE). Furthermore, questions on non-specific symptoms and number of GP contacts were included. After 4 weeks patients received a second, identical, questionnaire. Response and missing items, total scores and dispersion, responsiveness, and associations between instruments and other measures were examined. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients completed the questionnaire at baseline, of whom 98 completed it both at baseline and 4 weeks later (response rate: 32.7%). The instruments had a full completion rate of 80% or higher. Differences between baseline and follow up were significant for the EQ-5D (p=0.026), SF-12 PCS (p=0.026) and the GPE (p=0.006). A strong correlation (r ≥ 0.6) was found between the SF-12 MCS and GHQ-12, at both baseline measurement and after four weeks. Other observed associations between instruments were moderately strong. No strong correlations were found between instruments and non-specific symptoms or number of GP contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is among the first to explore the use of generic patient-reported outcome measures in primary care. It provides several leads for developing a generic PROM questionnaire in primary care as well as for potential limitations of such instruments.

Effect of accreditation on the quality of chronic disease management: a comparative observational study.

BACKGROUND: Practice accreditation is widely used to assess and improve quality of healthcare providers. Little is known about its effectiveness, particularly in primary care. In this study we examined the effect of accreditation on quality of care regarding diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: A comparative observational study with two cohorts was performed. We included 138 Dutch family practices that participated in the national accreditation program for primary care. A first cohort of 69 practices was measured at start and completion of a 3-year accreditation program. A second cohort of 69 practices was included and measured simultaneously with the final measurement of the first cohort. In separate multilevel regression analyses, we compared both within-group changes in the first cohort and between-groups differences at follow-up (first cohort) and start (second cohort). Outcome measures consisted of 24 systematically developed indicators of quality of care in targeted chronic diseases. RESULTS: In the within-group comparison, we found improvements on 6 indicators related to diabetes (feet examination, cholesterol measurement, lipid lowering medication prescription) and COPD (spirometry performance, stop smoking advice). In the between-groups comparison we found that first cohort practices performed better on 4 indicators related to diabetes (cholesterol outcome) and CVD (blood pressure outcome, smoke status registration, glucose measurement). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements of the quality of primary care for patients with chronic diseases were found, but few could be attributed to the accreditation program. Further development of accreditation is needed to enhance its effectiveness on chronic disease management.

Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs.

BACKGROUND: Comparative performance information (CPI) about the quality of hospital care is information used to identify high-quality hospitals and providers. As the gatekeeper to secondary care, the general practitioner (GP) can use CPI to reflect on the pros and cons of the available options with the patient and choose a provider best fitted to the patient's needs. We investigated how GPs view their role in using CPI to choose providers and support patients. METHOD: We used a mixed-method, sequential, exploratory design to conduct explorative interviews with 15 GPs about their referral routines, methods of referral consideration, patient involvement, and the role of CPI. Then we quantified the qualitative results by sending a survey questionnaire to 81 GPs affiliated with a representative national research network. RESULTS: Seventy GPs (86% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most GPs did not know where to find CPI (87%) and had never searched for it (94%). The GPs reported that they were not motivated to use CPI due to doubts about its role as support information, uncertainty about the effect of using CPI, lack of faith in better outcomes, and uncertainty about CPI content and validity. Nonetheless, most GPs believed that patients would like to be informed about quality-of-care differences (62%), and about half the GPs discussed quality-of-care differences with their patients (46%), though these discussions were not based on CPI. CONCLUSION: Decisions about referrals to hospital care are not based on CPI exchanges during GP consultations. As a gatekeeper, the GP is in a good position to guide patients through the enormous amount of quality information that is available. Nevertheless, it is unclear how and whether the GP's role in using information about quality of care in the referral process can grow, as patients hardly ever initiate a discussion based on CPI, though they seem to be increasingly more critical about differences in quality of care. Future research should address the conditions needed to support GPs' ability and willingness to use CPI to guide their patients in the referral process.

Organizational determinants of high-quality routine diabetes care.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials showed that changes in healthcare organization improved diabetes care. This study aimed to identify which organizational determinants were associated with patient outcomes in routine diabetes care. DESIGN: Observational study, in which multilevel regression analyses were applied to examine the impact of 12 organizational determinants on diabetes care as separate measures and as a composite score. SETTING: Primary care practices in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 11,751 patients with diabetes in 354 practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' recorded glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure, and serum cholesterol levels. RESULTS: A higher score on the composite measure of organizational determinants was associated with better control of systolic blood pressure (p = 0.017). No effects on HbA1C or cholesterol levels were found. Exploration of specific organizational factors found significant impact of use of an electronic patient registry on HbA1c (OR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.12-2.88), availability of patient leaflets on systolic blood pressure control (OR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.06-6.35), and number of hours' nurse education on cholesterol control (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.02-6.15). CONCLUSION: In routine primary care, it was found that favorable healthcare organization was associated with a number of intermediate outcomes in diabetes care. This finding lends support to the findings of trials on organizational changes in diabetes care. Notably, the composite measure of organizational determinants had most impact.

Exploring consumer values of comparative performance information for hospital choice.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, market orientation in healthcare has resulted in the publication of comparative performance information (CPI). Most of the research in this field is oriented towards the content and the presentation format of CPI while little is known about how consumers value CPI and the use of this information. AIM: The aim of this study was to clarify the perceived value that CPI brings for consumers of healthcare. Methods Qualitative research using six focus group interviews. Twenty-seven healthcare consumers were recruited using a mailing list and by personal invitation. Data from focus group interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Most participants were unaware of CPI, and valued alternative sources of information more than CPI. Through discussion with other consumers and by means of examples of CPI, respondents were able to express the values and perceived effects of CPI. Numerous underlying values hindered consumers' use of CPI, and therefore clarification of consumer values gave insights into the current non-usage of CPI. CONCLUSIONS: CPI is marginally valued, partly because of conflicting values expressed by consumers and, as such, it does not yet provide a useful information source on hospital choice beyond consumers' current selection routines in healthcare. Future research should be more focused on the values of consumers and their impact on the use of CPI.