ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
BRCA1 Protein , Ovarian Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/genetics , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/diagnosis , BRCA1 Protein/genetics , Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnosis , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics , BRCA2 Protein/genetics , Genetic Testing , Germ-Line Mutation , Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseABSTRACT
Universal tumor DNA testing in epithelial ovarian cancer patients can function not only as an efficient prescreen for hereditary cancer testing, but may also guide treatment choices. This innovation, introduced as Tumor-First workflow, offers great opportunities, but ensuring optimal multidisciplinary collaboration is a challenge. We investigated factors that were relevant and important for large-scale implementation. In three multidisciplinary online focus groups, healthcare professionals (gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, and clinical laboratory specialists) were interviewed on factors critical for the implementation of the Tumor-First workflow. Recordings were transcribed for analysis in Atlas.ti according to the framework of Flottorp that categorizes seven implementation domains. Healthcare professionals from all disciplines endorse implementation of the Tumor-First workflow, but more detailed standardization and advice regarding the logistics of the workflow were needed. Healthcare professionals explored ways to stay informed about the different phases of the workflow and the results. They emphasized the importance of including all epithelial ovarian cancer patients in the workflow and monitoring this inclusion. Overall, healthcare professionals would appreciate supporting material for the implementation of the Tumor-First workflow in the daily work routine. Focus group discussions have revealed factors for developing a tailored implementation strategy for the Tumor-First workflow in order to optimize care for epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Future innovations affecting multidisciplinary oncology teams including clinical geneticists can benefit from the lessons learned.
Subject(s)
Ovarian Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Focus Groups , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/genetics , Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnosis , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics , DNA/therapeutic use , Delivery of Health CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective methodology study was to investigate the influence of using different definitions for restoration failure and inclusion criteria on restoration longevity expressed in AFR. METHODS: EPF from fifteen general dental practices were used for collecting the data for this study. From the EPF, 321,749 composite restorations placed in 52,245 patients by forty-seven GDPs between January 2000 and December 2011 were included. Kaplan-Meier statistics were applied and mean AFRs over 2, 5 and 10 years were calculated. The effect on the AFR of using different levels of failure: based on Claims data (CD), Success (SUC), Survival (SUR) and different inclusion criteria of tooth/restoration variables were reported. RESULTS: Highest AFRs were found for level CD, in which every intervention was considered as failure, and the lowest AFRs for level SUR in which repairs and an endodontic treatments were not considered as a failure. AFRs increased when the observation period prolonged especially for SUR, followed by SUC and CD. An overview of long-term survival studies showed a wide variation in study design, performed clinical examination (USPHS criteria or GDP), number of restorations included, description of restoration failure and found AFRs for CD, SUC and SUR. SIGNIFICANCE: Using failure criteria, Success and Survival, in future clinical studies would enable a better comparison of studies as well as demonstrate the impact of more conservative restorative intervention protocols on patient care.
Subject(s)
Dental Caries , Dental Restoration, Permanent , Composite Resins , Dental Restoration Failure , General Practice, Dental , Humans , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Dental Caries , Dental Restoration, Permanent , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Dental Enamel , Dentin , Dentists , Humans , Norway , Practice Patterns, Dentists'ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/statistics & numerical data , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/diagnosis , Head and Neck Neoplasms/pathology , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Staging , Netherlands , Patient Care Planning/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Feedback , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Insurance Carriers/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Preference , Female , Health Personnel/standards , Health Services Research , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Medical Audit/standards , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Quality Indicators, Health CareABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Disease Management , General Practice/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality of Health Care , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Case-mix adjustment is generally considered indispensable for fair comparison of healthcare performance. Inaccurate results are also unfair to patients as they are ineffective for improving quality. However, little is known about what factors should be adjusted for. We reviewed case-mix factors included in adjustment models for key diabetes indicators, the rationale for their inclusion, and their impact on performance. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review included studies published up to June 2013 addressing case-mix factors for 6 key diabetes indicators: 2 outcomes and 2 process indicators for glycated hemoglobin (A1C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure. Factors were categorized as demographic, diabetes-related, comorbidity, generic health, geographic, or care-seeking, and were evaluated on the rationale for inclusion in the adjustment models, as well as their impact on indicator scores and ranking. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, mainly addressing A1C value and measurement. Twenty-three different case-mix factors, mostly demographic and diabetes-related, were identified, and varied from 1 to 14 per adjustment model. Six studies provided selection motives for the inclusion of case-mix factors. Marital status and body mass index showed a significant impact on A1C value. For the other factors, either no or conflicting associations were reported, or too few studies (n ≤ 2) investigated this association. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific knowledge about the relative importance of case-mix factors for diabetes indicators is emerging, especially for demographic and diabetes-related factors and indicators on A1C, but is still limited. Because arbitrary adjustment potentially results in inaccurate quality information, meaningful stratification that demonstrates inequity in care might be a better guide, as it can be a driver for quality improvement.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Diagnosis-Related Groups , Risk Adjustment/methods , Age Factors , Body Mass Index , Cholesterol, LDL/blood , Comorbidity , Glycated Hemoglobin , Health Status , Humans , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective practice-based study was to investigate the longevity of direct restorations placed by a group of general dental practitioners (GDPs) and to explore the effect of practice/operator, patient, and tooth/restoration related factors on restoration survival. METHODS: Electronic Patient Files of 24 general dental practices were used for collecting the data for this study. From the patient files, longevity of 359,548 composite, amalgam, glass-ionomer and compomer placed in 75,556 patients by 67 GDPs between 1996 and 2011 were analyzed. Survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier statistics. RESULTS: A wide variation in annual failure rate (AFR) exists between the different dental practices varying between 2.3% and 7.9%. Restorations in elderly people (65 years and older, AFR 6.9%) showed a shorter survival compared to restorations placed in patients younger than 65 years old (AFR 4.2%-5.0%). Restorations in molar teeth, multi-surface restorations and restorations placed in endodontically treated teeth seemed to be more at risk for re-intervention. CONCLUSION: The investigated group of GDPs place restorations with a satisfactory longevity (mean AFR 4.6% over 10 years), although substantial differences in outcome between practitioners exist. Several potential risk factors on practice/operator, patient, and tooth/restoration level have been identified and require further multivariate investigation.
Subject(s)
Dental Restoration Failure/statistics & numerical data , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Dental Restoration, Permanent/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Dental Caries/therapy , Dental Materials , Dental Offices/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
AIM: To determine the prevalence and trend of the influenza vaccination-rate of the overall target population in the period 2008-2013, with a specific focus on groups at risk such as patients with cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and aged 60 years and older. METHODS: In an observational longitudinal study electronic medical records data from the Dutch representative network of general practices, LINH, were analyzed. For each influenza vaccination season, 2008-2013, the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients at risk are compared by chi-square tests (χ(2)) for linear trends, linear-by-linear association. The level of significance was set at p<0.001 based on the large number of available records. RESULTS: The influenza vaccination rate of the overall at risk group decreased significantly from 71.5% in the 2008 season, to 59.6% in the 2013 vaccination season. The difference of 11.9% was gradual over the years, with a mean decrease of 2.4% per year. The decrease was seen in all specified groups at risk, but was mainly among patients aged 60-65 years (mean yearly decrease of 3.3%). CONCLUSION: For the fifth subsequent year, we notice a lowering trend of the influenza vaccination rate in the population at risk. Reports in the mass media on questioning the effectiveness of the vaccination program may have been an influence; as well as the relatively light outbreaks of influenza in the past years, which may have affected the sense of urgency. The gradual decrease in vaccination rates over recent years requires further research and a public health debate is needed on the usefulness and necessity of the vaccination program.
Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Vaccination/trends , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-modifiable patient characteristics, including age, gender, ethnicity as well as the occurrence of multi-morbidities, are associated with processes and outcomes of diabetes care. Information on these factors can be used in case mix adjustment of performance measures. However, the practical relevance of such adjustment is not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the strength of associations between patient factors and diabetes care processes and outcomes. METHODS: We performed an observational study based on routinely collected data of 12,498 diabetes patients in 59 Dutch primary care practices. Data were collected on patient age, gender, whether the patient lived in a deprived area, body mass index and the co-occurrence of cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression or anxiety. Outcomes included 6 dichotomous measures (3 process and 3 outcome related) regarding glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol. We performed separate hierarchical logistic mixed model regression models for each of the outcome measures. RESULTS: Each of the process measure models showed moderate effect sizes, with pooled areas under the curve that varied between 0.66 and 0.76. The frequency of diabetes related consultations as a measure of patient compliance to treatment showed the strongest association with all process measures (odds ratios between 5.6 and 14.5). The effect sizes of the outcome measure models were considerably smaller than the process measure models, with pooled areas under the curve varying from 0.57 to 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: Several non-modifiable patient factors could be associated with processes and outcomes of diabetes care. However, associations were small. These results suggest that case-mix correction or stratification in assessing diabetes care has limited practical relevance.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Diabetes Complications/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Primary Health Care , Risk AdjustmentABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Accreditation/statistics & numerical data , Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Primary Health Care/standards , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Blood Glucose , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Determination/statistics & numerical data , Chronic Disease , Cohort Studies , Diabetic Foot/diagnosis , Disease Management , Humans , Hypercholesterolemia/diagnosis , Hypercholesterolemia/drug therapy , Hypolipidemic Agents/therapeutic use , Multilevel Analysis , Netherlands , Physical Examination , Quality Improvement , Regression Analysis , Smoking/therapy , Spirometry/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Blood Pressure , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality of Health Care , Adult , Aged , Cholesterol/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Education, Nursing , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism , Humans , Male , Medical Records , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Odds Ratio , Patient Education as Topic , Patient Outcome Assessment , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Regression AnalysisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent in patients with diabetes or hypertension in primary care. A shared care model could improve quality of care in these patients AIM: To assess the effect of a shared care model in managing patients with CKD who also have diabetes or hypertension. Design and setting A cluster randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in The Netherlands. METHOD: Five practices were allocated to the shared care model and four practices to usual care for 1 year. Primary outcome was the achievement of blood pressure targets (130/80 mmHg) and lowering of blood pressure in patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Data of 90 intervention and 74 control patients could be analysed. Blood pressure in the intervention group decreased with 8.1 (95% CI = 4.8 to 11.3)/1.1 (95% CI = -1.0 to 3.2) compared to -0.2 (95% CI = -3.8 to 3.3)/-0.5 (95% CI = -2.9 to 1.8) in the control group. Use of lipid-lowering drugs, angiotensin-system inhibitors and vitamin D was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (73% versus 51%, 81% versus 64%, and 15% versus 1%, respectively, [P = 0.004, P = 0.01, and P = 0.002]). CONCLUSION: A shared care model between GP, nurse practitioner and nephrologist is beneficial in reducing systolic blood pressure in patients with CKD in primary care.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/nursing , Diabetic Nephropathies/nursing , Hypertension/nursing , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/nursing , Aged , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Blood Pressure/physiology , Cluster Analysis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetic Nephropathies/complications , Female , General Practice/methods , Glomerular Filtration Rate/physiology , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/physiopathology , Hypolipidemic Agents/therapeutic use , Male , Nephrology , Nephrology Nursing/methods , Nurse Practitioners/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Treatment Outcome , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In many countries, quality indicators are used to assess the quality of care of family practice. Such assessments need to have an adequate precision, so that the results can be interpreted correctly. However, a small sample size per practitioner can lead to inadequate precision. A possible solution could be to create composite performance scores. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between sample size and precision. We examine whether a composite performance score has an increased precision and how many indicators are needed minimally to achieve this level of precision. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a descriptive statistical study on data from the medical records of 455 Dutch practices. We included 3 different conditions: diabetes (12 indicators), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4 indicators), and Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management (9 indicators). RESULTS: For individual quality indicators, patient samples close to 100 are required to achieve even moderate precision (10 percentage points) on the performance scores. This number decreases substantially when a composite score is used. A composite derived from combining 5 to 7 indicators can provide much the same precision of measurement as one made up from a much larger number of indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The added value of a composite score depends on the a priori reasons for measuring quality. Our results indicate that especially for formative quality improvement a small number of carefully selected indicators can provide a sufficiently precise composite measure.
Subject(s)
Family Practice/statistics & numerical data , Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Humans , Netherlands , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/prevention & control , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2009 the pandemic influenza virus A(H1N1)pdm09 emerged with guidance that people at risk should be vaccinated. It is unclear how this event affected the underlying seasonal vaccination rate in subsequent years. PURPOSE: To investigate the association of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and seasonal flu vaccination status in 2009 with vaccination rates in 2010 and 2011. METHODS: Data were collected in 40 Dutch family practices on patients at risk for influenza during 2009-2011; data analysis was conducted in 2012. RESULTS: A multilevel logistic regression model (n=41,843 patients) adjusted for practice and patient characteristics (age and gender, as well as those patient groups at risk), showed that people who were vaccinated against A(H1N1)pdm09 in 2009 were more likely to have been vaccinated in 2010 (OR 6.02; 95%CI 5.62-6.45, p<.0001). This likelihood was even more for people who were vaccinated against seasonal flu in 2009 (OR 13.83; 95%CI 12.93-14.78, p<.0001). A second analysis on the uptake rate in 2011 (n=39,468 patients) showed that the influence of the vaccination state in 2009 declined after two years, but the diminishing effect was smaller for people vaccinated against A(H1N1)pdm09 than for seasonal flu (OR 5.50; 95%CI 5.13-5.90, p<.0001; OR 10.98; 95%CI 10.26-11.75, p<.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Being vaccinated against A(H1N1)pdm09 and seasonal influenza in the pandemic year 2009 enhanced the probability of vaccination in the next year and this was still effective in 2011. This suggests that peoples' vaccination routines were not changed by the rumor around the outbreak of A(H1N1)pdm09, but rather confirmed underlying behavior.
Subject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/immunology , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of chronic multimorbidity and its increase in primary care. DESIGN: Descriptive longitudinal study. METHOD: We selected patients suffering from chronic pulmonary disease, chronic cardiovascular disease, or diabetes from a national representative general practice research database (LINH). For each year in the period 2003-2009, we calculated the prevalence of these separate conditions. We subsequently assessed the prevalence of multimorbidity and its increase for 4 different age groups (0-14, 15-44, 45-64, ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The percentage of all patients suffering from at least 1 of these chronic conditions increased from 12.6% in 2003 to 15.0% in 2009, an increase of almost 20%. The multimorbidity among these patients rose from 15.9% in 2003 to 18.3% in 2009. This increase in multimorbidity was found in all 3 chronic conditions under study and in all adult age groups. To what extent this increase was caused by improvements in morbidity registration could not be identified. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a considerable increase in recent years in the prevalence of chronic diseases; multimorbidity appears also to have increased. If this trend continues, in 2015 the multimorbidity among patients over 65 years of age with diabetes, chronic pulmonary and/or cardiovascular disease will be more than 30%.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , General Practice/statistics & numerical data , Lung Diseases/mortality , Morbidity/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Comorbidity/trends , Female , General Practice/trends , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prevalence , Young AdultSubject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Vaccination/standards , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , National Health Programs/organization & administration , Netherlands/epidemiology , Primary Prevention/organization & administration , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Vaccination/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Physicians' heavy workload is often thought to jeopardise the quality of care and to be a barrier to improving quality. The relationship between these has, however, rarely been investigated. In this study quality of care is defined as care 'in accordance with professional guidelines'. In this study we investigated whether GPs with a higher workload adhere less to guidelines than those with a lower workload and whether guideline recommendations that require a greater time investment are less adhered to than those that can save time. METHODS: Data were used from the Second Dutch National survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2). This nationwide study was carried out between April 2000 and January 2002.A multilevel logistic-regression analysis was conducted of 170,677 decisions made by GPs, referring to 41 Guideline Adherence Indicators (GAIs), which were derived from 32 different guidelines. Data were used from 130 GPs, working in 83 practices with 98,577 patients. GP-characteristics as well as guideline characteristics were used as independent variables. Measures include workload (number of contacts), hours spent on continuing medical education, satisfaction with available time, practice characteristics and patient characteristics. Outcome measure is an indicator score, which is 1 when a decision is in accordance with professional guidelines or 0 when the decision deviates from guidelines. RESULTS: On average, 66% of the decisions GPs made were in accordance with guidelines. No relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and their adherence to guidelines. Subjective workload (measured on a five point scale) was negatively related to guideline adherence (OR = 0.95). After controlling for all other variables, the variation between GPs in adherence to guideline recommendations showed a range of less than 10%.84% of the variation in guideline adherence was located at the GAI-level. Which means that the differences in adherence levels between guidelines are much larger than differences between GPs. Guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment during the same consultation are significantly less adhered to: (OR = 0.46), while those that can save time have much higher adherence levels: OR = 1.55). Recommendations that reduce the likelihood of a follow-up consultation for the same problem are also more often adhered to compared to those that have no influence on this (OR = 3.13). CONCLUSION: No significant relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and adherence to guidelines. However, guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment are significantly less well adhered to while those that can save time are significantly more often adhered to.
Subject(s)
Family Practice/statistics & numerical data , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Workload/standards , Adult , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Netherlands , Work Schedule Tolerance , Workload/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' views on the care provided by nurse practitioners compared with that provided by general practitioners and to determine factors influencing these views. BACKGROUND: Many countries have sought to shift aspects of primary care provision from doctors to nurses. It is unclear how patients view these skill mix changes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHOD: Patients (n = 235) who received care from both nurse and doctor were sent a self-administered questionnaire. The main outcome measures were patient preferences, satisfaction with the nurses and doctors and factors influencing patients' preference and satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients preferred the doctor for medical aspects of care, whereas for educational and routine aspects of care half of the patients preferred the nurse or had no preference for either the nurse or doctor. Patients were generally very satisfied with both nurse and doctor. Patients were significantly more satisfied with the nurse for those aspects of care related to the support provided to patients and families and to the time made available to patients. However, variations in preference and satisfaction were mostly attributable to variation in individual patient characteristics, not doctor, nurse or practice characteristics. CONCLUSION: Patient preference for nurse or doctor and patient satisfaction both vary with the type of care required and reflect usual work demarcations between nurses and doctors. In general, patients are very satisfied with the care they receive. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: In many countries, different aspects of primary care provision have shifted from doctors to nurses. Our study suggests that these skill mix changes meet the needs of patients and that patients are very satisfied with the care they receive. However, to implement skill mix change in general practice it is important to consider usual work demarcations between nurses and doctors.