Identifying and prioritizing educational content from a malpractice claims database for clinical reasoning education in the vocational training of general practitioners.

Diagnostic reasoning is an important topic in General Practitioners' (GPs) vocational training. Interestingly, research has paid little attention to the content of the cases used in clinical reasoning education. Malpractice claims of diagnostic errors represent cases that impact patients and that reflect potential knowledge gaps and contextual factors. With this study, we aimed to identify and prioritize educational content from a malpractice claims database in order to improve clinical reasoning education in GP training. With input from various experts in clinical reasoning and diagnostic error, we defined five priority criteria that reflect educational relevance. Fifty unique medical conditions from a malpractice claims database were scored on those priority criteria by stakeholders in clinical reasoning education in 2021. Subsequently, we calculated the mean total priority score for each condition. Mean total priority score (min 5-max 25) for all fifty diagnoses was 17,11 with a range from 13,89 to 19,61. We identified and described the fifteen highest scoring diseases (with priority scores ranging from 18,17 to 19,61). The prioritized conditions involved complex common (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, renal insufficiency and cancer), complex rare (e.g., endocarditis, ectopic pregnancy, testicular torsion) and more straightforward common conditions (e.g., tendon rupture/injury, eye infection). The claim cases often demonstrated atypical presentations or complex contextual factors. Including those malpractice cases in GP vocational training could enrich the illness scripts of diseases that are at high risk of errors, which may reduce diagnostic error and related patient harm.

Different potencies of topical corticosteroids for a better treatment strategy in children with atopic dermatitis (the Rotterdam Eczema study): protocol for an observational cohort study with an embedded randomised open-label controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Topical corticosteroids (TCS) of different potencies are the main treatment to control atopic dermatitis (AD). The Dutch guideline on AD for general practitioners (GPs) recommends a stepwise approach in which treatment steps are tailored to the severity of the disease, starting with the lowest possible potency of TCS. However, it remains unclear whether the recommended stepwise approach is most efficient. This randomised open-label controlled trial aims to determine whether a potent TCS is more effective than a low-potency TCS in the initial treatment of children with a moderate flare-up of AD in primary care. In the observational cohort, the overall aim is to determine the frequency, burden and determinants of flare-ups of AD during follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled, open-label trial. Eligible are patients diagnosed with AD (aged 12 weeks to 18 years) who visited the GP for AD or received repeated prescriptions for AD in the previous 12 months; follow-up of the cohort is 1 year. Children are enrolled in the trial if they have a flare-up of AD during follow-up in the cohort. Eligible children are randomised to the intervention group (with a potent TCS once daily) or to the GP guideline group (with a low potency TCS once daily). Primary outcome is the difference in average subjective disease severity over 24 weeks follow-up in the trial, measured with the patient-oriented eczema measure. As secondary outcome, the Eczema Area and Severity Index is measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study tests the hypothesis that immediate treatment with a potent TCS during a flare-up of AD leads to faster and more efficacious results as compared with starting with a TCS with low potency with less overall use of TCS. The study protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (MEC) of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands (MEC-2017-328). The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR: 6679; Pre-results.

[Sterile gloves are not necessary in minor surgery]. / Steriele handschoenen bij kleine chirurgie niet nodig.

According to the practice guideline of the Dutch Workingparty on Infection Prevention (WIP) sterile gloves have to be worn during minor surgery by the general practitioner. This is based on the microbiological principles of Spaulding and is not supported by other evidence. Current literature suggests that using clean, nonsterile gloves, instead of sterile gloves, does not result in a greater risk of wound infection in primary closed wounds after minor surgery. Also, in daily practice, only 24% of general practitioners actually wear sterile gloves. We therefore propose to modify the guideline: using clean, nonsterile gloves during minor surgery is sufficient.