Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.

Who should provide care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy? A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners and oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: While close collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital specialists is considered important, the sharing of care responsibilities between GPs and oncologists during palliative chemotherapy has not been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews using six hypothetical scenarios with purposively sampled GPs (n = 12) and oncologists (n = 10) in the Netherlands. Each represented an example of a clinical problem requiring different aspects of care: problems likely, or not, related to cancer or chemotherapy, need for decision support, and end-of-life care. RESULTS: GPs and oncologists agreed that GPs should provide end-of-life care and that they should be involved in decisions about palliative chemotherapy; however, for the other scenarios most participants considered themselves the most appropriate provider of care. Themes that emerged regarding who would provide the best care for the patients in the different scenarios were expertise, continuity of care, accessibility of care, doctor-patient relationship, and communication. Most participants mentioned improved communication between the GP and oncologist as being essential for a better coordination and quality of care. CONCLUSION: GPs and oncologists have different opinions about who should ideally provide different aspects of care during palliative chemotherapy. Findings raise awareness of the differences in reasoning and approaches and in current communication deficits between the two groups of health professionals. These findings could be used to improve coordination and collaboration and, ultimately, better patient care as results demonstrated that both disciplines can add value to the care for patients with advanced cancer. Key points This study identified contrasting opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Important themes that emerged were expertise, continuity of care, doctor-patient relations, accessibility of care, and communication. Although frequently using the same arguments, GPs and oncologists often considered themselves to be the most appropriate providers of palliative care.

Experiences of general practitioners participating in oncology meetings with specialists to support GP-led survivorship care; an interview study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Due to ageing, increasing cancer incidence and improved treatment, the number of survivors of cancer increases. To overcome the growing demand for hospital care survivorship by the involvement of the general practitioner (GP) has been suggested. Dutch GPs started a project to offer survivorship care to their patients with the help of monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the experiences of GPs with monthly oncology meetings in a GP-practice to support GP-led survivorship care of colon cancer patients. METHODS: This is a qualitative study in primary care centres in a region in the Netherlands around one hospital. GPs were recruited from practices organizing monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists. Ten of 15 participating GPs were interviewed until saturation. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and two independent researchers analysed the data. RESULTS: The oncology meetings and individual care plans attributed to a feeling of shared responsibility for the patients by the GP and the specialist. The meetings helped the GPs to be informed about the patients in the diagnostic and treatment phase, which was followed by a clear moment of transfer from hospital to primary care. GPs were better equipped to treat comorbidity and were more confident in providing survivorship care. Due to lack of reimbursement for survivorship care, the internal motivation of the GP must high. CONCLUSION: The oncology meetings fulfil the need for information and communication. Close cooperation between GPs and oncology specialists appears to be an essential factor for GPs to value GP-led survivorship care positively.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing to older patients in primary care in the Netherlands: a retrospective longitudinal study.

Background: potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is associated with adverse health effects in older patients. PIP comprises prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Objective: to estimate the prevalence of PIMs and PPOs among older patients in primary care. Design: retrospective longitudinal study. Setting: routinely collected data of 182,000 patients of 49 general practitioners (GPs) gathered in the GPs' database of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Subjects: in each studied year, all patients who were aged 65 years and older at 1st January. Methods: the prevalence of patients with at least one PIM and patients with at least one PPO was measured in 8 subsequent years (2007-14) by application of the Screening Tool of Older Persons potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate trends in the prevalence of PIMs and PPOs over the years. Results: on average, 4,537 patients were included per investigated year. The mean prevalence of ≥1 PIM was 34.7% (range 34.0-35.6%) and of ≥1 PPO 84.8% (range 77.4-90.6%). Examples were the prescription of salicylates without a proper indication and the absence of a therapeutically indicated vitamin D prescription. The prevalence of ≥1 PPOs showed a statistically significant decrease over the investigated years (OR 0.87, P < 0.001), whereas the prevalence of PIMs did not change significantly. Conclusions: this study underscores the need for more attention to medication prescribing to older patients. The prevalence of PIP among older patients in primary care is substantial and the prevalence of PIMs did not decrease over time.

Enablers and barriers for implementing high-quality hypertension care in a rural primary care setting in Nigeria: perspectives of primary care staff and health insurance managers.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a highly prevalent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) that can be modified through timely and long-term treatment in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We explored perspectives of primary care staff and health insurance managers on enablers and barriers for implementing high-quality hypertension care, in the context of a community-based health insurance programme in rural Nigeria. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews with primary care staff (n = 11) and health insurance managers (n=4). Data were analysed using standard qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Both stakeholder groups perceived health insurance as an important facilitator for implementing high-quality hypertension care because it covered costs of care for patients and provided essential resources and incentives to clinics: guidelines, staff training, medications, and diagnostic equipment. Perceived inhibitors included the following: high staff workload; administrative challenges at facilities; discordance between healthcare provider and insurer on how health insurance and provider payment methods work; and insufficient fit between some guideline recommendations and tools for patient education and characteristics/needs of the local patient population. Perceived strategies to address inhibitors included the following: task-shifting; adequate provider payment benchmarking; good provider-insurer relationships; automated administration systems; and tailoring guidelines/patient education. CONCLUSIONS: By providing insights into perspectives of primary care providers and health insurance managers, this study offers information on potential strategies for implementing high-quality hypertension care for insured patients in SSA.

Perceptions of inhibitors and facilitators for adhering to hypertension treatment among insured patients in rural Nigeria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Universal health care coverage has been identified as a promising strategy for improving hypertension treatment and control rates in sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Yet, even when quality care is accessible, poor adherence can compromise treatment outcomes. To provide information for adherence support interventions, this study explored what low income patients who received hypertension care in the context of a community based health insurance program in Nigeria perceive as inhibitors and facilitators for adhering to pharmacotherapy and healthy behaviors. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 40 insured hypertensive patients who had received hypertension care for > 1 year in a rural primary care hospital in Kwara state, Nigeria. Supported by MAXQDA software, interview transcripts were inductively coded. Codes were then grouped into concepts and thematic categories, leading to matrices for inhibitors and facilitators of treatment adherence. RESULTS: Important patient-identified facilitators of medication adherence included: affordability of care (through health insurance); trust in orthodox "western" medicines; trust in Doctor; dreaded dangers of hypertension; and use of prayer to support efficacy of pills. Inhibitors of medication adherence included: inconvenient clinic operating hours; long waiting times; under-dispensing of prescriptions; side-effects of pills; faith motivated changes of medication regimen; herbal supplementation/substitution of pills; and ignorance that regular use is needed. Local practices and norms were identified as important inhibitors to the uptake of healthier behaviors (e.g. use of salt for food preservation; negative cultural images associated with decreased body size and physical activity). Important factors facilitating such behaviors were the awareness that salt substitutes and products for composing healthier meals were cheaply available at local markets and that exercise could be integrated in people's daily activities (e.g. farming, yam pounding, and household chores). CONCLUSIONS: With a better understanding of patient perceived inhibitors and facilitators of adherence to hypertension treatment, this study provides information for patient education and health system level interventions that can be designed to improve compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN47894401 .

[Point-of-care testing in family practices: present use and need for tests in the future]. / Sneltesten in de huisartspraktijk: huidig gebruik en behoefte aan testen in de toekomst.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the current use, future needs, and attitudes towards point-of-care testing among Dutch family practitioners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. METHOD: We performed a survey among 2129 Dutch family practitioners. We asked respondents to report on the current and desired use of point-of-care tests, frequency of use, their opinions on aspects of point-of-care tests and consequences of point-of-care tests on their practice, acceptable waiting times for test results to come in, the desire for point-of-care tests at out-of-hours services, and conditions for which a point-of-care test could assist in diagnosis. RESULTS: 639 family practitioners completed the survey (response rate: 30%). The most common point-of-care tests currently used by family physicians were: blood glucose (96%), urine leucocytes or nitrite (96%), urine pregnancy (94%), haemoglobin (58%), and CRP (48%). The most commonly desired point-of-care tests were: D-dimer (70%), troponin (65%), BNP (62%), chlamydia (60%), and INR (54%). Family practitioners expected point-of-care tests to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction (93%), diagnostic certainty (89%), antibiotics use (84%), and substitution to primary care (78%). They considered the proven effect on clinical management (46%) and the tests' reliability (35%) to be important aspects of point-of-care tests. Respondents wanted point-of-care tests to help them diagnose acute conditions, such as acute thromboembolic disorders (D-dimers), cardiac disorders (troponin, BNP), and infections (CRP, chlamydia). CONCLUSION: The current use of point-of-care testing in family practice is restricted to a limited number of tests. In the future, Dutch family practitioners wish to use more point-of-care tests, especially in acute conditions in which a diagnostic decision needs to be made immediately.

Why do they keep coming back? Psychosocial etiology of persistence of frequent attendance in primary care: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who visit their General Practitioner (GP) very frequently over extended periods of time often have multimorbidity and are costly in primary and specialist healthcare. We investigated the impact of patient-level psychosocial and GP-level factors on the persistence of frequent attendance (FA) in primary care. METHODS: Two-year prospective cohort study in 623 incident adult frequent attenders (>90th attendance centile; age and sex-adjusted) in 2009. Information was collected through questionnaires (patients, GPs) and GPs' patient data. We used multilevel, ordinal logistic regression analysis, controlling for somatic illness and demographic factors with FA in 2010 and/or 2011 as the outcome. RESULTS: Other anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 2.00; 95% confidence interval from 1.29 to 3.10) over 3years and the number of life events in 3years (OR 1.06; 1.01-1.10 per event; range of 0 to 12) and, at baseline, panic disorder (OR 5.40; 1.67-17.48), other anxiety (OR 2.78; 1.04-7.46), illness behavior (OR 1.13; 1.05-1.20 per point; 28-point scale) and lack of mastery (OR 1.08; 1.01-1.15 per point; 28-point scale) were associated with persistence of FA. We found no evidence of synergistic effects of somatic, psychological and social problems. We found no strong evidence of effects of GP characteristics. CONCLUSION: Panic disorder, other anxiety, negative life events, illness behavior and lack of mastery are independently associated with persistence of frequent attendance. Effective intervention at these factors, apart from their intrinsic benefits to these patients, may reduce attendance rates, and healthcare expenditures in primary and specialist care.

From assessment to improvement of elderly care in general practice using decision support to increase adherence to ACOVE quality indicators: study protocol for randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous efforts such as Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) provide quality indicators for assessing the care of elderly patients, but thus far little has been done to leverage this knowledge to improve care for these patients. We describe a clinical decision support system to improve general practitioner (GP) adherence to ACOVE quality indicators and a protocol for investigating impact on GPs' adherence to the rules. DESIGN: We propose two randomized controlled trials among a group of Dutch GP teams on adherence to ACOVE quality indicators. In both trials a clinical decision support system provides un-intrusive feedback appearing as a color-coded, dynamically updated, list of items needing attention. The first trial pertains to real-time automatically verifiable rules. The second trial concerns non-automatically verifiable rules (adherence cannot be established by the clinical decision support system itself, but the GPs report whether they will adhere to the rules). In both trials we will randomize teams of GPs caring for the same patients into two groups, A and B. For the automatically verifiable rules, group A GPs receive support only for a specific inter-related subset of rules, and group B GPs receive support only for the remainder of the rules. For non-automatically verifiable rules, group A GPs receive feedback framed as actions with positive consequences, and group B GPs receive feedback framed as inaction with negative consequences. GPs indicate whether they adhere to non-automatically verifiable rules. In both trials, the main outcome measure is mean adherence, automatically derived or self-reported, to the rules. DISCUSSION: We relied on active end-user involvement in selecting the rules to support, and on a model for providing feedback displayed as color-coded real-time messages concerning the patient visiting the GP at that time, without interrupting the GP's workflow with pop-ups. While these aspects are believed to increase clinical decision support system acceptance and its impact on adherence to the selected clinical rules, systems with these properties have not yet been evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials NTR3566.

Morbidity and doctor characteristics only partly explain the substantial healthcare expenditures of frequent attenders: a record linkage study between patient data and reimbursements data.

BACKGROUND: Frequently attending patients to primary care (FA) are likely to cost more in primary care than their non-frequently attending counterparts. But how much is spent on specialist care of FAs? We describe the healthcare expenditures of frequently attending patients during 1, 2 or 3 years and test the hypothesis that additional costs can be explained by FAs' combined morbidity and primary care physicians' characteristics. METHODS: Record linkage study. Pseudonymised clinical data from the medical records of 16 531 patients from 39 general practices were linked to healthcare insurer's reimbursements data. Main outcome measures were all reimbursed primary and specialist healthcare costs between 2007 and 2009. Multilevel linear regression analysis was used to quantify the effects of the different durations of frequent attendance on three-year total healthcare expenditures in primary and specialist care, while adjusting for age, sex, morbidities and for primary care physicians characteristics. Primary care physicians' characteristics were collected through administrative data and a questionnaire. RESULTS: Unadjusted mean 3-year expenditures were 5044 and 15 824 Euros for non-FAs and three-year-FAs, respectively. After adjustment for all other included confounders, costs both in primary and specialist care remained substantially higher and increased with longer duration of frequent attendance. As compared to non-FAs, adjusted mean expenditures were 1723 and 5293 Euros higher for one-year and three-year FAs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FAs of primary care give rise to substantial costs not only in primary, but also in specialist care that cannot be explained by their multimorbidity. Primary care physicians' working styles appear not to explain these excess costs. The mechanisms behind this excess expenditure remain to be elucidated.

Improving stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk for stroke. Antithrombotic treatment reduces this risk. Antithrombotic treatment consists of either administration of oral anticoagulants (OAC) or the provision of an antiplatelet drug. International guidelines provide advice on the preferred treatment, thereby balancing the risks and benefits of OAC. However, adherence to these guidelines is reported to be as low as 50%. There is paucity in research on why adherence rates are low. Recent studies have shown decision support systems can improve guideline adherence. We investigate the use of a clinical decision support system to improve guideline adherence among general practitioners (GPs) treating patients with AF and study reasons for guideline non-adherence. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a randomized controlled trial, which is performed among Dutch general practitioners. Initially, GPs in the vicinity of the Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Amsterdam will be included, after which other practices will be recruited. We have developed a novel decision support system that displays a list with pending messages for the on-screen medical record in real time. Messages are generated on a server that evaluates a decision rule based on the atrial fibrillation guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners. By interacting with the list, messages can be opened for a description and explanation, or be ignored. GPs are allocated into three groups: 1) control group; 2) intervention group A, in which messages can be ignored without justification; and 3) intervention group B, in which messages can only be ignored with justification.Our main outcome measure is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients receiving antithrombotic prescriptions in adherence to the Dutch GP guideline for atrial fibrillation. Secondary outcomes are reasons GPs state for deviating from the guideline and the effect on guideline adherence of requiring justification when ignoring a message. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized trial to study the effects of a clinical decision support system in patients with atrial fibrillation. The system is characterized by a non-interruptive presentation and real-time messages that are updated after each relevant action the GP performs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register under registration number 3570.