[Medical disciplinary boards punish more often and more severely; an observational study of 10 years of medical disciplinary law]. / Medische tuchtcolleges straffen vaker en strenger.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if the medical disciplinary law in the Netherlands is becoming tougher. DESIGN: Observational study. METHOD: We read the annual reports of the Dutch Disciplinary Committees for the Healthcare Sector 2007-2017, and registered the numbers of disciplinary cases and those cases upheld, the measures imposed and the degree of consistency in the event of an appeal. Over 400 medical disciplinary cases were reviewed in more detail. Based on these cases, we determined those variables that increase or decrease the likelihood of conviction, such as the gender of the defendants, the region in which the disciplinary case was heard, and if objective norms and professional practice guidelines had been used in arriving at the verdict. RESULTS: Each year a disciplinary case is brought against an average of 0.4% of all health care providers - mainly physicians (an average of approximately 1400 disciplinary cases each year). One-third of all disciplinary cases were dealt with in court and about half of them were upheld. Over time, the number of disciplinary cases has increased (36%), as has the percentage of cases that are upheld (27%). Additionally, heavier measures were more often imposed and the degree of consistency between the initial ruling and the ruling on appeal also increased (56%). Those factors that increased the likelihood of a case being upheld were: being a physician of male gender, the disciplinary case being heard in The Hague or Eindhoven, and the non-implementation of an objective norm or professional practice guideline in arriving at the verdict. CONCLUSION: Since 2007 the Dutch medical disciplinary boards have been punishing more often and more severely. This may be because the subjective demands made on health care professionals have changed. Arriving at an opinion subjectively is not a problem when it comes to verifying compliance with standards of due care. However, if this method is used to determine the penalty, the health care system will become defensive - and this will not improve the quality of care.

Safety and long-term effects of renal denervation: Rationale and design of the Dutch registry.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous renal denervation (RDN) has recently been introduced as a treatment for therapy-resistant hypertension. Also, it has been suggested that RDN may be beneficial for other conditions characterised by increased sympathetic nerve activity. There are still many uncertainties with regard to efficacy, safety, predictors for success and long-term effects. To answer these important questions, we initiated a Dutch RDN registry aiming to collect data from all RDN procedures performed in the Netherlands. METHODS: The Dutch RDN registry is an ongoing investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre cohort study. Twenty-six Dutch hospitals agreed to participate in this registry. All patients who undergo RDN, regardless of the clinical indication or device that is used, will be included. Data are currently being collected on eligibility and screening, treatment and follow-up. RESULTS: Procedures have been performed since August 2010. At present, data from 306 patients have been entered into the database. The main indication for RDN was hypertension (n = 302, 99%). Patients had a mean office blood pressure of 177/100 (±29/16) mmHg with a median use of three (range 0-8) blood pressure lowering drugs. Mean 24-hour blood pressure before RDN was 157/93 (±18/13) mmHg. RDN was performed with different devices, with the Simplicity™ catheter currently used most frequently. CONCLUSION: Here we report on the rationale and design of the Dutch RDN registry. Enrolment in this investigator-initiated study is ongoing. We present baseline characteristics of the first 306 participants.

Early referral for intentional rescue PTCA after initiation of thrombolytic therapy in patients admitted to a community hospital because of a large acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: If no in-house facilities for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) are present, thrombolytic therapy is the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A few studies have shown benefit from rescue PTCA in patients directly admitted to centers with PTCA facilities. The obvious question arises whether patients with AMI initially admitted to a community hospital can benefit from early transfer for intentional rescue PTCA. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five patients were transferred early for intentional rescue PTCA from a community hospital at a distance of 20 miles. On arrival at the angioplasty center, bedside markers were used to determine reperfusion. In case of obvious reperfusion, no invasive procedure was done; otherwise, coronary angiography and rescue PTCA, if necessary, was performed. During transfer, 1 (1%) patient died and 15 (9%) patients had arrhythmic or hemodynamic problems. Median time delay between onset of chest pain and arrival at the community hospital and the PTCA center was 61 minutes (range 0 to 413) and 150 minutes (range 28 to 472), respectively. In 66 (40%) patients, reperfusion was diagnosed by noninvasive reperfusion criteria on arrival at the PTCA center (group 1). Ninety-eight (59%) patients without evident noninvasive criteria of reperfusion underwent angiography 187 median minutes after the onset of chest pain. Forty-one (25%) patients had Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow, and no further intervention was performed (group 2). In the remaining 57 (35%) patients, rescue PTCA was performed, which was successful in 96% (group 3). In-hospital mortality rate was lowest in group 1 compared with the other 2 groups (0% vs 7% vs 11%; P <.05). Reinfarction was highest in group 1 compared with the other groups (17% vs 5% vs 2%; P <.01). No significant differences were found in coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, or bleeding complications. The 1-year follow-up data showed low revascularization rates; 2 (1%) patients died after discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Early transfer of patients with large AMI for intentional rescue PTCA can be done with acceptable safety and is feasible within therapeutically acceptable time limits and results in additional early reperfusion in 33% of patients. A large, randomized, multicenter trial is needed to compare efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in a community hospital versus early referral for either rescue or primary PTCA.