Introducing a time out consultation with the general practitioner between diagnosis and start of colorectal cancer treatment: Patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the introduction of a "time out consultation" with the general practitioner (GP) recommended to patients following the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) before start of treatment. METHODS: A prospective study using questionnaires to compare the number of GP consultations, with their content and outcomes before and after the introduction of an additional consultation with the GP to improve decision-making and adequate support. RESULTS: 72 patients before and 98 patients after the introduction of the "time out consultation" participated. Introduction of the consultation increased the number of patients to contact their GP from 67% to 80%, but did not change kind or content of the consultations. Patients felt the consultation was comforting and were more satisfied with the GP after the introduction. There was no difference in outcomes measured by the questionnaires in all patients combined, but men, older patients and patients with palliative treatment options only did improve on specific outcomes after the introduction. CONCLUSION: The introduction of the "time out consultation" did not change the kind or content of GP consultations before start of CRC treatment, but patients did feel more comforted and satisfied. Subgroups of patients benefited on specific outcomes.

Screening methods to detect child maltreatment: high variability in Dutch emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, screening for child maltreatment is mandatory in all emergency departments but it is unclear which screening methods are being used. As a first step towards implementation of a universal screening method across all emergency departments, we assessed the currently used screening methods. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the screening methods for child maltreatment across all emergency departments in the Netherlands and to assess their empirical substantiation. METHODS: We surveyed all emergency departments in the Netherlands using a questionnaire on screening methods. All screening checklists used in emergency departments were assembled and compared with the literature. RESULTS: 85 hospitals with an emergency department were approached, 80 of which completed the questionnaire and 77 provided copies of their screening checklists. All participating hospitals use a screening checklist, 41% a screening physical examination, 60% a screening based on parental risk factors and 3% a retrospective review of all charts. The empirical substantiation for these screening methods is largely lacking, and at least 73% of the hospitals use a checklist that has not been reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations in screening methods exist across emergency departments in the Netherlands, most of which are not based on empirical evidence.