Model-Informed Precision Dosing Using Machine Learning for Levothyroxine in General Practice: Development, Validation and Clinical Simulation Trial.

Levothyroxine is one of the most prescribed drugs in the western world. Dosing is challenging due to high-interindividual differences in effective dosage and the narrow therapeutic window. Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) using machine learning could assist general practitioners (GPs), but no such models exist for primary care. Furthermore, introduction of decision-support algorithms in healthcare is limited due to the substantial gap between developers and clinicians' perspectives. We report the development, validation, and a clinical simulation trial of the first MIPD application for primary care. Stable maintenance dosage of levothyroxine was the model target. The multiclass model generates predictions for individual patients, for different dosing classes. Random forest was trained and tested on a national primary care database (n = 19,004) with a final weighted AUC across dosing options of 0.71, even in subclinical hypothyroidism. TSH, fT4, weight, and age were most predictive. To assess the safety, feasibility, and clinical impact of MIPD for levothyroxine, we performed clinical simulation studies in GPs and compared MIPD to traditional prescription. Fifty-one GPs selected starting dosages for 20 primary hypothyroidism cases without and then with MIPD 2 weeks later. Overdosage and underdosage were defined as higher and lower than 12.5 µg relative to stable maintenance dosage. MIPD decreased overdosage in number (30.5 to 23.9%, P < 0.01) and magnitude (median 50 to 37.5 µg, P < 0.01) and increased optimal starting dosages (18.3 to 30.2%, P < 0.01). GPs considered lab results more often with MIPD and most would use the model frequently. This study demonstrates the clinical relevance, safety, and effectiveness of MIPD for levothyroxine in primary care.

Towards reducing diagnostic delay in endometriosis in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Due to a heterogeneity of symptoms, a lack of an adequate diagnostic test and a lack of awareness, diagnostic delay in endometriosis in primary care on average amounts to 35 months. AIM: To determine which interventions are most feasible to reduce time to diagnosis in primary care, focusing on GPs' preferences, the intervention's content, design and implementation. DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted a qualitative study by performing focus groups with GPs and GP trainees between July and October 2021. METHOD: Data collection was continued until saturation was obtained. Focus groups were transcribed and openly encoded. Themes were formulated by three independent researchers. RESULTS: Divided over five focus groups 22 GPs and 13 GP trainees participated. Three themes were formulated: increasing awareness, combined intervention and reaching unaware GPs.Suggestions for a combined intervention strategy were adaptation of guidelines, a diagnostic support tool and compulsory education. To reach unaware GPs, participants felt that education should be offered in regional networks and education for GP trainees should be mandatory. A guideline on menstrual symptoms should be considered, and the term endometriosis should be added to the differential diagnosis paragraphs of existing guidelines. A diagnostic support tool should be linked to a guideline and consist of a flowchart with steps starting with the first presentation of symptoms leading to the diagnosis of endometriosis. CONCLUSION: According to GPs, a combined intervention strategy consisting of an adapted guideline, a diagnostic support tool and education might be successful interventions in reduction of diagnostic delay in endometriosis.

Trends in low-value GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies showed that during the pandemic patients have refrained from visiting their general practitioner (GP). This resulted in medical care being delayed, postponed or completely forgone. The provision of low-value care, i.e. care which offers no net benefit for the patient, also could have been affected. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on three types of low-value GP care: 1) imaging for back or knee problems, 2) antibiotics for otitis media acuta (OMA), and 3) repeated opioid prescriptions, without a prior GP visit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using registration data from GPs part of an academic GP network over the period 2017-2022. The COVID-19 period was defined as the period between April 2020 to December 2021. The periods before (January 2017 to April 2020) and after the COVID-19 period (January 2022 to December 2022) are the pre- and post-restrictions periods. The three clinical practices examined were selected by two practicing GPs from a top 30 of recommendations originating from the Dutch GP guidelines, based on their perceived prevalence and relevance in practice (van Dulmen et al., BMC Primary Care 23:141, 2022). Multilevel Poisson regression models were built to examine changes in the incidence rates (IR) of both registered episodes and episodes receiving low-value treatment. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 restrictions period, the IRs of episodes of all three types of GP care decreased significantly. The IR of episodes of back or knee pain decreased by 12%, OMA episodes by 54% and opioid prescription rate by 13%. Only the IR of OMA episodes remained significantly lower (22%) during the post-restrictions period. The provision of low-value care also changed. The IR of imaging for back or knee pain and low-value prescription of antibiotics for OMA both decreased significantly during the COVID-restrictions period (by 21% and 78%), but only the low-value prescription rate of antibiotics for OMA remained significantly lower (by 63%) during the post-restrictions period. The IR of inappropriately repeated opioid prescriptions remained unchanged over all three periods. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that both the rate of episodes as well as the rate at which low-value care was provided have generally been affected by the COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, it shows that the magnitude of the impact of the restrictions varies depending on the type of low-value care. This indicates that deimplementation of low-value care requires tailored (multiple) interventions and may not be achieved through a single disruption or intervention alone.

Are specialist-provided end-of-life scenarios key to initiation of advance care planning in primary care? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Specialist-provided end-of-life scenarios (SP-EOLS) may improve advance care planning (ACP) implementation in primary care by helping overcome barriers such as uncertain prognosis and poor interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to explore the current use and potential impact of SP-EOLS on ACP in Dutch primary care. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study. From patients discussed in a hospital-based academic palliative care multidisciplinary team meeting between 2016 and 2019 and died, we collected primary care electronic medical records data on SP-EOLS, actual EOLS, and ACP initiation and applied descriptive and comparative analyses. Subsequently, we interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and thematically analyzed the transcripts. RESULTS: In 69.7% of 66 reviewed patient files, SP-EOLS were found. In patients whose GP had received SP-EOLS, ACP conversations were more often reported (92.0 vs. 61.0%, p = 0.006). From 11 GP interviews, we identified 4 themes: (1) SP-EOLS guide GPs, patients, and relatives when dealing with an uncertain future perspective; (2) SP-EOLS provide continuity of care between primary and secondary/tertiary care; (3) SP-EOLS should be tailored to the individual patient; and (4) SP-EOLS need to be personalized and uniformly transferred to GPs. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: SP-EOLS may facilitate ACP conversations by GPs. They have the potential to help overcome existing barriers to ACP implementation by providing guidance and supporting interprofessional collaboration. Future research should focus on improving SP-EOLS and tailor them to the needs of all end users, focusing on improving their effect on ACP conversations.

The burden of persistent symptom diagnoses in primary care patients: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of symptoms is a subjective experience of distress. Little is known on the burden of feeling unwell in patients with persistent symptom diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the burden in primary care patients with persistent symptom diagnoses compared to other primary care patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in which an online survey was sent to random samples of 889 patients with persistent symptom diagnoses (>1 year) and 443 other primary care patients after a transactional identification in a Dutch primary care data registry. Validated questionnaires were used to assess the severity of symptoms (PHQ-15), Symptom Intensity and Symptom Interference questionnaires, depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), quality of life (SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L)) and social functioning (SPF-ILs). RESULTS: Overall, 243 patients completed the survey: 178 (73.3%) patients in the persistent symptom diagnoses group and 65 (26.7%) patients in the control group. In the persistent group, 65 (36.5%) patients did not have persistent symptom(s) anymore according to the survey response. Patients who still had persistent symptom diagnoses (n = 113, 63.5%) reported significantly more severe somatic symptoms (mean difference = 3.6, [95% CI: 0.24, 4.41]), depression (mean difference = 3.0 [95% CI: 1.24, 3.61]) and anxiety (mean difference = 2.3 [95% CI: 0.28, 3.10]) and significantly lower physical functioning (mean difference = - 6.8 [95% CI: -8.96, -3.92]). CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent symptom diagnoses suffer from high levels of symptoms burden. The burden in patient with persistent symptoms should not be underestimated as awareness of this burden may enhance person-centered care.

Exploring diagnostic strategies for memory complaints in older adults: A retrospective general practice database study.

OBJECTIVES: For older people who worry about their memory, their general practitioner (GP) is often the first healthcare professional they turn to. This study aims to increase knowledge of GPs' daily practice on diagnostic strategies for patients who present themselves with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia for the first time in general practice and to explore associations of patients' characteristics with these strategies. METHOD: Retrospective observational study using electronic patient records from patients presenting with memory complaints between 2012 and 2019. The patient records are derived from a Dutch primary care registration network. The decision on diagnostic strategy was extracted and categorized as (1) wait and see, (2) diagnostic testing in primary care, or (3) referral. Patient characteristics (gender, age, general practice, level of comorbidities, chronic polypharmacy, and the number of consultations on memory complaints), fear of developing dementia, and information on why the first consultation on memory complaints was scheduled were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were included. Most patients were cared for within primary care, either for further primary care diagnostics (56.1%) or because a wait-and-see strategy was pursued (14.9%). One-third (28.9%) of patients were referred. Differences between diagnostic strategies in patient characteristics, fear of developing dementia, or reason for first consultation between these diagnostic strategies were not found, nor were these variables predictive of referral. CONCLUSION: Most Dutch patients with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia who seek help from their GP for the first time are cared for in the primary care setting for the following 6 months. The lack of association between included patient characteristics and diagnostic strategies highlights the complexity of the decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia in general practice.

Needs and challenges among general practitioners in the management of actinic keratosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Because of the increasing incidence of actinic keratosis (AK), optimal use of limited healthcare resources is essential. Although most patients can be managed in primary care, dermatology referrals are common. More profound knowledge of general practitioners' (GPs) considerations might assist in enhancing AK care. METHODS: The aim of the current study was to gain insight into AK management in primary care by exploring the needs and challenges among GPs in the Netherlands. A qualitative study was conducted based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 15 conveniently sampled Dutch GPs, focusing on the needs and challenges in AK management. A literature-informed, predefined topic list guided the interviews, which were recorded, transcribed ad verbatim, and thematically analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: All GPs reported AK to be a clinical diagnosis and most GPs indicated that most AK patients could be managed in primary care. Cryotherapy was preferred and experience with 5-FU therapy was limited. Most GPs applied cryotherapy without discussing other treatment options with patients. Reasons for dermatology referrals included an incomplete treatment response, extensive lesions, difficult-to-treat areas, and serious doubts about the diagnosis. GPs reported a need for more education, especially on 5-FU therapy. Their main challenges were dealing with diagnostic uncertainty, treating extensive lesions, managing treatment-related skin reactions, and reconciling patient misconceptions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows various AK management approaches among Dutch GPs with suboptimal guideline compliance due to diverse underlying barriers. It suggests that more education might contribute to a more standardised and uniform AK management and supports further transition of AK care from hospital to primary care.

Home-based initiatives for acute management of COVID-19 patients needing oxygen: differences across The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic new collaborative-care initiatives were developed for treating and monitoring COVID-19 patients with oxygen at home. Aim was to provide a structured overview focused on differences and similarities of initiatives of acute home-based management in the Netherlands. METHODS: Initiatives were eligible for evaluation if (i) COVID-19 patients received oxygen treatment at home; (ii) patients received structured remote monitoring; (iii) it was not an 'early hospital discharge' program; (iv) at least one patient was included. Protocols were screened, and additional information was obtained from involved physicians. Design choices were categorised into: eligible patient group, organization medical care, remote monitoring, nursing care, and devices used. RESULTS: Nine initiatives were screened for eligibility; five were included. Three initiatives included low-risk patients and two were designed specifically for frail patients. Emergency department (ED) visit for an initial diagnostic work-up and evaluation was mandatory in three initiatives before starting home management. Medical responsibility was either assigned to the general practitioner or hospital specialist, most often pulmonologist or internist. Pulse-oximetry was used in all initiatives, with additional monitoring of heart rate and respiratory rate in three initiatives. Remote monitoring staff's qualification and authority varied, and organization and logistics were covered by persons with various backgrounds. All initiatives offered remote monitoring via an application, two also offered a paper diary option. CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences in the organization of interprofessional collaboration for acute home management of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. All initiatives used pulse-oximetry and an app for remote monitoring. Our overview may be of help to healthcare providers and organizations to set up and implement similar acute home management initiatives for critical episodes of COVID-19 (or other acute disorders) that would otherwise require hospital care.

Diagnosing knee osteoarthritis in patients, differences between general practitioners and orthopedic surgeons: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: knee complaints are one of the most common reasons to consult the general practitioners in the Netherlands and contribute to the increasing burden on general practitioners. A proportion of patients that are referred to orthopedic outpatient clinics are potentially referred unnecessarily. We believe osteoarthritis is not always considered by general practitioners as the cause of atraumatic knee complaints. This may impede early recognition and timely care of osteoarthritis complaints and lead to unnecessary referrals. METHODS: the aim of this study was to compare the frequency of (differential) diagnosis of osteoarthritis mentioned in referral letters of general practitioners with the frequency of osteoarthritis mentioned as orthopedic diagnosis at the outpatient clinic. Therefore we conducted a retrospective cohort study based on data collected from referral letters and the corresponding outpatient clinic reports of patients with atraumatic knee complaints of 45 years or older referred to a regional hospital in Nijmegen, The Netherlands in the period from 1-6-2019 until 1-01-2020. RESULTS: a total of 292 referral letters were included. In the younger aged patients (45-54 years) osteoarthritis was mentioned less frequent and meniscal lesions were mentioned more frequent in referral letters when compared to diagnoses made at the outpatient clinic. Differences in differential diagnosis of osteoarthritis as well as meniscal lesions between orthopedic surgeon and general practitioners were found (both p < 0.001, McNemar). Matching diagnoses were present in 58.2% when all referral letters were analyzed (n = 292) and 75.2% when only referrals containing a differential diagnosis were analyzed (n = 226). Matching diagnoses were present in 31.6% in the younger age categories (45-54 years). A linear trend showing fewer matching diagnoses in younger patient categories was observed (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Osteoarthritis was less frequently mentioned in general practitioner referral letters among the differential diagnosis then it was diagnosed at the outpatient clinic, especially in younger patients (45-54 years). Also matching diagnoses in younger patients were evidently lower than in older patients, partly explained by underdiagnosing of osteoarthritis in younger patients in this cohort. Better recognition of osteoarthritis in younger patients and changing the diagnostic approach of general practitioners might improve efficacy in knee care. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of musculoskeletal triage, the need for multidisciplinary educational programs for patients and promotion of conservative treatment modalities among general practitioners.

Personal Continuity and Appropriate Prescribing in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Personal continuity between patient and physician is a core value of primary care. Although previous studies suggest that personal continuity is associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions, evidence on continuity and prescribing in primary care is scarce. We aimed to determine the association between personal continuity and potentially inappropriate prescriptions, which encompasses potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), by family physicians among older patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using routine care data from patients enlisted in 48 Dutch family practices from 2013 to 2018. All 25,854 patients aged 65 years and older having at least 5 contacts with their practice in 6 years were included. We calculated personal continuity using 3 established measures: the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Index, and the Herfindahl Index. We used the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) specific to the Netherlands version 2 criteria to calculate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. To assess associations, we conducted multilevel negative binomial regression analyses, with and without adjustment for number of chronic conditions, age, and sex. RESULTS: The patients' mean (SD) values for the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index, and the Herfindahl Index were 0.70 (0.19), 0.55 (0.24), and 0.59 (0.22), respectively. In our population, 72.2% and 74.3% of patients had at least 1 PIM and PPO, respectively; 30.9% and 34.2% had at least 3 PIMs and PPOs, respectively. All 3 measures of personal continuity were positively and significantly associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: A higher level of personal continuity is associated with more appropriate prescribing. Increasing personal continuity may improve the quality of prescriptions and reduce harmful consequences.

Patients' Characteristics and General Practitioners' Management of Patients with Symptom Diagnoses.

INTRODUCTION: Symptom diagnoses are diagnoses used in primary care when the relevant diagnostic criteria of a disease are not fulfilled. Although symptom diagnoses often get resolved spontaneously without a clearly defined illness nor treatment, up to 38% of these symptoms persist more than 1 year. It is largely unknown how often symptom diagnoses occur, which symptoms persist, and how general practitioners (GPs) manage them. AIM: Explore morbidity rates, characteristics and management of patients with nonpersistent (≤1 year) and persistent (>1 year) symptom diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in a Dutch practice-based research network including 28,590 registered patients. We selected symptom diagnosis episodes with at least 1 contact in 2018. We performed descriptive statistics, Student's T and χ2 tests to summarize and compare patients' characteristics and GP management strategies in the nonpersistent and persistent groups. RESULTS: The incidence rate of symptom diagnoses was 767 episodes per 1000 patient-years. The prevalence rate was 485 patients per 1000 patient-years. Out of the patients who had a contact with their GPs, 58% had at least 1 symptom diagnosis, from which 16% were persistent (>1 year). In the persistent group, we found significantly more females (64% vs 57%), older patients (mean: 49 vs 36 years of age), patients with more comorbidities (71% vs 49%), psychological (17% vs 12%) and social (8% vs 5%) problems. Prescriptions (62% vs 23%) and referral (62.7% vs 30.6%) rates were significantly higher in persistent symptom episodes. CONCLUSION: Symptom diagnoses are highly prevalent (58%) of which a considerable part (16%) persists more than a year.

Patients with Clinically Suspected Gallstone Disease: A More Selective Ultrasound May Improve Treatment Related Outcomes.

This study aimed to quantify the confirmation of gallstones on ultrasound (US) in patients with suspicion of gallstone disease. To aid general practitioners (GPs) in diagnostic workup, a model to predict gallstones was developed. A prospective cohort study was conducted in two Dutch general hospitals. Patients (≥18 years) were eligible for inclusion when referred by GPs for US with suspicion of gallstones. The primary outcome was the confirmation of gallstones on US. A multivariable regression model was developed to predict the presence of gallstones. In total, 177 patients were referred with a clinical suspicion of gallstones. Gallstones were found in 64 of 177 patients (36.2%). Patients with gallstones reported higher pain scores (VAS 8.0 vs. 6.0, p < 0.001), less frequent pain (21.9% vs. 54.9%, p < 0.001), and more often met criteria for biliary colic (62.5% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.023). Predictors for the presence of gallstones were a higher pain score, frequency of pain less than weekly, biliary colic, and an absence of heartburn. The model showed good discrimination between patients with and without gallstones (C-statistic 0.73, range: 0.68-0.76). Clinical diagnosis of symptomatic gallstone disease is challenging. The model developed in this study may aid in the selection of patients for referral and improve treatment related outcomes.

Beliefs of rheumatologists and general practitioners on urate lowering therapy: a cross-sectional study.

Objective: To describe beliefs of physicians and patients in primary and secondary care about urate-lowering therapy (ULT), to examine differences in physicians' medication beliefs and to examine the association of physicians' medication beliefs with the prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes and patients' medication beliefs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among rheumatologists and general practitioners (GPs) and their patients using ULT in The Netherlands. All participants filled out the Beliefs About Medication Questionnaire (BMQ). Demographics of physicians were collected through questionnaires. Patient and disease characteristics were collected through questionnaires and electronic medical records. Differences between rheumatologists and GPs in the BMQ subscales Necessity and Concern and the necessity-concern difference (NCD) score were analysed by two-sample t-tests. Multilevel analyses were performed to examine the association of physicians' BMQ scores with the prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes (number of gout flares, serum urate) and patients' BMQ scores. Results: A total of 28 rheumatologists, 443 rheumatology patients, 45 GPs and 294 GP patients were included. The mean NCD scores were 7.1 (s.d. 3.6), 4.0 (s.d. 4.0), and 4.2 (s.d. 5.0) for rheumatologists, GPs and patients, respectively. Rheumatologists scored higher on necessity beliefs [mean difference 1.4 (95% CI 0.0, 2.8)] and lower on concern beliefs [mean difference -1.7 (95% CI -2.7, -0.7)] compared with GPs. No associations between physicians' beliefs and prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes or patients' beliefs were found. Conclusion: Rheumatologists had higher necessity and lower ULT concern beliefs compared with GPs and patients. Physicians' beliefs were not related to prescribed ULT dosage and patient outcomes. The role of physicians' beliefs in gout management in patients using ULT seems limited. Future qualitative research can provide more insights into physicians' views of gout management.

Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue after COVID-19: a prospective matched cohort study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Persistent fatigue after COVID-19 is common; however, the exact incidence and prognostic factors differ between studies. Evidence suggests that age, female sex, high body mass index, and comorbidities are risk factors for long COVID. AIM: To investigate the prevalence of persistent fatigue after COVID-19 in patients with a mild infection (managed in primary care) during the first wave of the pandemic and to determine prognostic factors for persistent fatigue. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice, combining online questionnaires with data from electronic health records. METHOD: Patients who contacted their GP between March and May 2020 and were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic were included. Patients were matched to controls without COVID-19 based on age, sex, and GP practice. Fatigue was measured at 3, 6, and 15 months, using the Checklist of Individual Strength. RESULTS: All the participants were GP attendees and included 179 with suspected COVID-19, but who had mild COVID and who had not been admitted to hospital with COVID, and 122 without suspected COVID-19. Persistent fatigue was present in 35% (49/142) of the suspected COVID-19 group and 13% (14/109) of the non-COVID-19 group (odds ratio 3.65; 95% confidence interval = 1.82 to 7.32). Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue included low education level, absence of a partner, high neuroticism (using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Short Form), low resilience, high frequency of GP contact, medication use, and threatening experiences in the past. The latter three factors appeared to be prognostic factors for persistent fatigue specifically after COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: GP patients with COVID-19 (who were not admitted to hospital with COVID) have a fourfold higher chance of developing persistent fatigue than GP patients who had not had COVID-19. This risk is even higher in psychosocially vulnerable patients who had COVID-19.

Optimising personal continuity: a survey of GPs' and older patients' views.

BACKGROUND: Personal continuity - having a GP who knows their patients and keeps track of them - is an important dimension of continuity of care and is associated with lower mortality rates, higher quality of life, and reduced healthcare costs. In recent decades it has become more challenging for GPs to provide personal continuity owing to changes in society and health care. AIM: To investigate GPs' and older patients' views on personal continuity and how personal continuity can be improved. DESIGN & SETTING: Cross sectional survey study in The Netherlands. METHOD: A digital and postal survey was sent to 499 GPs and 1599 patients aged 65 years or older. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for open questions. RESULTS: In total, 249 GPs and 582 patients completed the surveys. A large majority of GPs (92-99%) and patients (91-98%) felt it was important for patients to see their own GP for life events or psychosocial issues. GPs and patients provided suggestions on how personal continuity can be improved. The thematic analysis of these suggestions identified nine themes: 1) personal connection, 2) GP accessibility and availability, 3) communication about (dis)continuity, 4) GP responsibility, 5) triage, 6) time for the patient, 7) actions by third parties, 8) team continuity, and 9) GP vocational training. CONCLUSION: Both GPs and older patients still place high value on personal continuity in the context of a changing society. GPs and patients provided a wide range of suggestions for improving personal continuity. The authors will use these suggestions to develop interventions for optimising personal continuity in general practice.

Impact of digital interdisciplinary consultation on secondary care referrals by general practitioners: a protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal collaboration between general practice and hospital care is crucial to maintain affordable and sustainable access to healthcare for the entire population. General practitioners (GPs) are the gatekeepers to specialist care and patients will visit hospitals mostly only after referral. However, a substantial part of these referrals may be inappropriate, as communication between GPs and medical specialists can be challenging and referring patients may be the most obvious action for a GP to perform.A new digital platform (Prisma) connects GPs and specialists in interdisciplinary groups and facilitates asynchronous, accessible and fast teleconsultation within the group. No previous research has been done to evaluate the impact of this new platform on the referral rates to the hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be performed in Zwolle region in the Netherlands to analyse the effect of introduction of the platform on rate of inappropriate referrals to orthopaedic surgery. In four steps, GPs in the region will be given access to the platform. GPs will be part of the control condition until randomisation to the intervention. According to our sample size calculation, we need to include 18 practices with 1008 patients presenting with hip and knee symptoms. Routine care data of hospital registrations will be analysed to calculate the rate of inappropriate referrals (primary outcome). Secondary outcome are costs, primary and secondary care workload, posted cases and user satisfaction. Alongside this quantitative analysis, we will evaluate patient experience, facilitators and barriers for use of the platform. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethics review board of University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), the Netherlands (METc-number: 2021/288) has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to the process evaluation because the study does not involve randomisation of patients or different medical treatments (letter number: M21.275351). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9704.

Actual timing versus GPs' perceptions of optimal timing of advance care planning: a mixed-methods health record-based study.

BACKGROUND: Timely initiation of advance care planning (ACP) in general practice is challenging, especially in patients with non-malignant conditions. Our aim was to investigate how perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation and its triggers relate to recorded actual timing in patients with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study in the Netherlands, we analysed health records selected from a database with primary care routine data and with a recorded ACP conversation in the last two years before death of patients who died with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. We compared actual timing of ACP initiation as recorded in health records of 51 patients with the perceived optimal timing as determined by 83 independent GPs who studied these records. Further, to identify and compare triggers for GPs to initiate ACP, we analysed the health record documentation around the moments of the recorded actual timing of ACP initiation and the perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation. We combined quantitative descriptive statistics with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The recorded actual timing of ACP initiation was significantly closer to death than the perceived optimal timing in patients with cancer (median 88 vs. 111 days before death (p = 0.049)), organ failure (227 vs. 306 days before death (p = 0.02)) and multimorbidity (113 vs. 338 days before death (p = 0.006)). Triggers for recorded actual versus perceived optimal timing were similar across the three groups, the most frequent being 'expressions of patients' reflections or wishes' (14% and 14% respectively) and 'appropriate setting' (10% and 13% respectively). CONCLUSION: ACP in general practice was initiated and recorded later in the illness trajectory than considered optimal, especially in patients with organ failure or multimorbidity. As triggers were similar for recorded actual and perceived optimal timing, we recommend that GPs initiate ACP shortly after a trigger is noticed the first time, rather than wait for additional or more evident triggers when the illness is in an advanced stage.

General practice and patient characteristics associated with personal continuity: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Personal continuity of care is a core value of general practice. It is increasingly threatened by societal and healthcare changes. AIM: To investigate the association between personal continuity and both practice and patient characteristics; and to incorporate GPs' views to enrich and validate the quantitative findings. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods study based on observational, routinely collected healthcare data from 269 478 patients from 48 Dutch general practices (2013-2018) and interviews with selected GPs. METHOD: First, four different personal continuity outcome measures were calculated relating to eight practice and 12 patient characteristics using multilevel linear regression analyses. Second, a thematic analysis was performed of semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs to include their views on factors contributing to personal (dis) continuity. These GPs worked at the 10 practices with the largest difference between calculated and model-estimated personal continuity. RESULTS: Both a larger number of usual GPs working in a practice and a larger percentage of patient contacts with locum GPs were dose-dependently associated with lower personal continuity (highest versus lowest quartile -0.094 and -0.092, respectively, P<0.001), whereas days since registration with the general practice was dose-dependently associated with higher personal continuity (highest versus lowest quartile +0.017, P<0.001). Older age, number of chronic conditions, and contacts were also associated with higher personal continuity. The in-depth interviews identified three key themes affecting personal continuity: team composition, practice organisation, and the personal views of the GPs. CONCLUSION: Personal continuity is associated with practice and patient characteristics. The dose-dependent associations suggest a causal relationship and, complemented by GPs' views, may provide practical targets to improve personal continuity directly.

Improving Primary Health Care Data With ICPC-3: From a Medical to a Person-Centered Perspective.

The World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) developed the third edition of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-3) to support the shift from a medical perspective to a person-centered perspective in primary health care. The previous editions (ICPC-1 and ICPC-2) allowed description of 3 important elements of health care encounters: the reason for the encounter, the diagnosis and/or health problem, and the process of care. The ICPC-3 adds function-related information as a fourth element, thereby capturing most parts of the encounter in a single practical and concise classification. ICPC-3 thus has the potential to give more insight on patients' activities and functioning, supporting physicians in shifting from a strict medical/disease-based approach to care to a more person-centered approach. The ICPC-3 is also expanded with a new chapter for visits pertaining to immunizations and for coding of special screening examinations and public health promotion; in addition, it contains classes for programs related to reported conditions (eg, a cardiovascular program, a heart failure program) and can accommodate relevant national or regional classes. Classes are selected based on what is truly and frequently occurring in daily practice. Each class has its own codes. Less frequently used concepts pertaining to morbidity are captured as inclusions within the main classes. Implementation of the ICPC-3 in an electronic health record allows provision of meaningful feedback to primary care, and supports the exchange of information within teams and between primary and secondary care. It also gives policy makers and funders insight into what is happening in primary care and thus has the potential to improve provision of care.

[Overtreatment of patients with basal cell carcinoma: active surveillance should be considered more often]. / Overbehandeling van patiënten met basaalcelcarcinoom.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer type in the Netherlands and frequently diagnosed in older adults. Unlike other common forms of skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma), BCC generally grows slowly and the risk of metastasis and/or death is extremely small. In the first years after presentation, BCC often causes no or only minor complaints. Nevertheless, the vast majority of patients with BCC are treated immediately after diagnosis, usually with surgical excision. We think that overtreatment of patients with BCC is common and active surveillance may be an excellent alternative for patients with a limited life expectancy and should therefore be considered more often.