Primary care patients with heart failure in the last year of their life.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative information about the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To assess the management of primary care patients with HF in their last year of life. METHODS: A retrospective observational study performed in 23 general practices in the Netherlands. The medical records of 399 patients with a diagnosis of HF and who died between 2001 and 2006 were scrutinized to review treatment and care in the year preceding death. RESULTS: The mean age at death was 82.3 (SD 8.8) years, and the median time between diagnosis and death was 48 months (range 3-285 months). In total, 55.9% died at home or home for the elderly, 32.6% in hospital and 11.5% in a nursing home or hospice. The mode of death was in 28% sudden death, in 23% progressive HF and in 49% others. During the last year of life, patients on average visited 0.4 times the cardiology outpatient clinic and needed on average 12.1 (range 0-53) home visits of the GP. At the end of life, 35% of all the patients received opioids, 7% haloperidol, 7% oxygen and 5% diuretics intravenously. Patients co-treated by a cardiologist received similar care, however, they used more HF drugs than patients managed solely by the GP. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients with advanced HF have a terminal phase and died of progressive HF. In the last year of life, the GP is the main provider of care.

Lessons learnt from incidents reported by postgraduate trainees in Dutch general practice. A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is an inherent tension between allowing trainees in general practice (GP) to feel comfortable to report and learn from errors in a blame-free environment while still assuring high-quality and safe patient care. Unfortunately, little is known about the types and potential severity of incidents that may confront GP trainees. Furthermore, incident reporting by resident trainees is hindered by their concern that such transparency might result in more negative performance evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To explore the number and nature of incidents that were reported by GP trainees and to determine whether there were differences between the reporters and non-reporters based on their performance evaluations. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Confidential and voluntary incident reporting was implemented in GP vocational training of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Seventy-nine GP trainees were asked to report incidents over 6 months. Mixed methods were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: 24 trainees reported a total of 44 incidents. 23 incidents concerned the work process and 17 concerned problems with diagnosis or therapy. Three-quarters (34/44) of incidents were determined to be not specifically related to the inexperience of the GP trainees. While actual patient harm was determined to be minimal or absent in two-thirds of incidents (29/44), the potential for moderate, major, or catastrophic harm was 89% (39/44). Trainees performing best on their performance assessment in the domain of clinical expertise reported incidents more often (43% vs 18%, p<0.03) than those who performed at a lower level. CONCLUSIONS: GP trainees rated highly by their faculty voluntarily reported incidents in the delivery of clinical care when given a safe, blame-free, and confidential reporting process. Most incidents were not found to be directly related to the inexperience of the trainee, but were caused by failing organisational processes in the healthcare delivery system. Moreover, the trainees who tended to report these incidents were those whose performance was highly evaluated in the domain of clinical expertise.