Low-value chronic prescription of acid reducing medication among Dutch general practitioners: impact of a patient education intervention.

BACKGROUND: Dyspepsia is a commonly encountered clinical condition in Dutch general practice, which is often treated through the prescription of acid-reducing medication (ARM). However, recent studies indicate that the majority of chronic ARM users lack an indication for their use and that their long-term use is associated with adverse outcomes. We developed a patient-focussed educational intervention aiming to reduce low-value (chronic) use of ARM. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled study, and evaluated its effect on the low-value chronic prescription of ARM using data from a subset (n = 26) of practices from the Nivel Primary Care Database. The intervention involved distributing an educational waiting room posters and flyers informing both patients and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriate indications for prescription of an ARM for dyspepsia, which also referred to an online decision aid. The interventions' effect was evaluated through calculation of the odds ratio of a patient receiving a low-value chronic ARM prescription over the second half of 2021 and 2022 (i.e. pre-intervention vs. post-intervention). RESULTS: In both the control and intervention groups, the proportion of patients receiving chronic low-value ARM prescriptions slightly increased. In the control group, it decreased from 50.3% in 2021 to 49.7% in 2022, and in the intervention group it increased from 51.3% in 2021 to 53.1% in 2022. Subsequent statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in low-value chronic prescriptions between the control and intervention groups (Odds ratio: 1.11 [0.84-1.47], p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our educational intervention did not result in a change in the low-value chronic prescription of ARM; approximately half of the patients of the intervention and control still received low-value chronic ARM prescriptions. The absence of effect might be explained by selection bias of participating practices, awareness on the topic of chronic AMR prescriptions and the relative low proportion of low-value chronic ARM prescribing in the intervention as well as the control group compared to an assessment conducted two years prior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 10/31/2023 NCT06108817.

Adoption of new medicines in primary care: A comparison between the uptake of new oral anticoagulants and diabetes medicines.

AIMS: To gain insight in the uptake and practice variation in the prescription of 2 new medicine groups for common conditions in primary care (direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs] and incretin-based therapies) from introduction, around 2007, to 2019 and the correlation between the adoption of those medicines in primary care. METHODS: Prescription data from general practices in the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database from 2007 to 2019 were used. The percentage of patients with prescriptions for DOACs of all patients with prescriptions for DOACs and vitamin K antagonists was calculated per practice per year, as was the percentage of patients prescribed incretin-based therapies as a proportion of all patients with diabetes medication. Multilevel models were used to estimate practice variation for DOACs and incretin-based therapies, expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis was used to study the association between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. RESULTS: Per year, 46-424 general practices and 179 933-1 654 376 patients were included. In 2019, the mean percentage of patients per practice using DOACs or incretin-based therapies was 54.9 and 9.7%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 0.75 to 0.024 for DOACs and from 0.33 to 0.074 for incretin-based medicines during the study period. No clear correlation was found between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. CONCLUSION: DOACs and incretin-based therapies have different adoption profiles and practice variation is large, especially in the years before these medicines were introduced in guidelines. Early adopters of both medicine classes differ.

Nivel Corona Cohort: A description of the cohort and methodology used for combining general practice electronic records with patient reported outcomes to study impact of a COVID-19 infection.

AIM: A population-based COVID-19 cohort was set up in the Netherlands to gain comprehensive insight in the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 in the general population. The present study aims to describe the methodology and infrastructure used to recruit individuals with COVID-19, and the representativeness of the population-based cohort. The second aim was to characterize the population by description of their symptoms and health care usage during the acute COVID-19 phase. METHOD: The starting point of the set-up of the cohort was to recruit participants in routinely recorded, general practice electronic health records (EHR) data, which are sent to the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research Primary Care Database (Nivel-PCD) on a weekly basis. Patients registered with COVID-19 were flagged in the Nivel-PCD based on their COVID-19 diagnoses. Flagged patients were invited for participation by their general practitioner via a trusted third party. Participating patients received a series of four questionnaires over the duration of one year allowing for a combination of data from patient reported outcomes and EHRs. RESULTS: In this study, results from the first questionnaire are used. The Nivel Corona Cohort consists of 442 participants and is population-based, containing a complete image of severity of symptoms from patients with none or hardly any symptoms to those who were hospitalized due to the COVID-19. The five most prevalent symptoms during the acute COVID-19 phase were fatigue (90.5%), reduced condition (88.2%), coughing/sneezing/stuffy nose (79.3%), headache (75.4%), and myalgia (66.7%). CONCLUSION: The population-based Nivel Corona Cohort provides ample opportunities for future studies to gain comprehensive insight in the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 by combining patients' perspectives and clinical parameters via the EHRs within a long-term follow-up of the cohort.

Provision of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines information: Perspectives of people who have had COVID-19.

AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the provision and need, quality of and trust in COVID-19 vaccines information from the perspectives of people who have had COVID-19 infection. METHOD: People who have had a COVID-19 infection were approached via their general practice and invited to participate in the Nivel Corona Cohort. They completed questionnaires at baseline (Q1), and at three months (Q2). Outcome measures were based on health information-seeking behaviour, as used in the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking. Antecedents (i.e., gender, age, education level, health literacy) were used from Q1, and one's beliefs and experiences (i.e., trust in the information and healthcare system, how applicable the information is), information carrier factors (i.e., information quality perceptions and via which sources), health-information seeking actions (i.e., decision to vaccinate and information sufficiency) and vaccination status from Q2. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses, analysis of variance tests (F-tests) and χ2 tests with the statistical software STATA. RESULTS: Of the respondents (N = 314), 96% were vaccinated at least once, mostly after having had the virus. Most retrieved information about COVID-19 vaccines on the website of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (79%), broader via the internet (56%), or from family and friends (35%). Almost all had trust in the information (89%) and healthcare system (94%). Most found the information applicable to their situation (67%). Moreover, most perceived the information as correct (71%) and did not perceive the information to be misleading (85%), while fewer people found the information reliable (59%) and clear (58%). Overall, the majority indicated that the information met their expectations to make a well-informed decision to vaccinate (89%). CONCLUSION: Different characteristics of people who had COVID-19 and sought information were identified, which is important to offer tailored information. People who had COVID-19 in this study, mainly middle-aged, vaccinated and highly educated, were generally positive about the vaccines information, but overall the reliability and clarity could be improved. This is important for a high vaccination uptake, booster programs and coming pandemics. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The questionnaire was reviewed by patients who had COVID-19, one of whom is a health services researcher.

Immediate release fentanyl in general practices: Mostly off-label prescribing.

BACKGROUND: The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label. METHODS: Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription. CONCLUSION: IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription.

Pattern of oral anticoagulant prescribing for atrial fibrillation in general practice: an observational study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the Dutch atrial fibrillation (AF) guideline for GPs, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are seen as equivalent, while in cardiology there is a preference for DOACs. AIM: To describe the pattern of oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescribing for AF by GPs and assess whether GPs proactively convert between VKAs and DOACs in patients with AF. DESIGN & SETTING: Observational study using routine practice data from 214 general practices, from 2017 until 2019. METHOD: Patients aged ≥60 years diagnosed with AF, who had been prescribed OACs by their GPs in 2018 were included. A distinction was made between starters, who were participants who did not use OACs in 2017, and prevalent users. It was observed and recorded whether patients switched between VKAs and DOACs. RESULTS: A total of 12 516 patients with AF were included. Four hundred and seventy-six patients (4%) started OACs in 2018; 12 040 patients were prevalent OAC users. When GPs started patients on OACs, DOACs were prescribed the most (88%). Among prevalent users, more than half of the patients used VKAs (60%). GPs switched between OACs for 1% of starters and 0.6% of prevalent users in 2018 and 2019. CONCLUSION: Dutch GPs predominantly start with DOACs in newly diagnosed patients with AF. Prevalent patients predominantly use VKAs and switching from a DOAC to a VKA is unusual. Consequently, the number of patients using VKAs will decline in the upcoming years. This trend raises questions about the future of organising frequent international normalised ratio (INR) checks for VKA users.

Primary nonadherence to drugs prescribed by general practitioners: A Dutch database study.

AIM: Primary nonadherence (PNA) is defined as not filling the first prescription for a drug treatment. PNA can lead not only to poor patient outcomes but also to exposure misclassification in written prescription databases. This study aims to estimate PNA in primary care in the Netherlands and to investigate associated factors. METHODS: Patients from the Nivel Primary Care Database (Nivel-PCD) who received a new prescription (>1 year not prescribed) from a general practitioner in 2012 were linked to pharmacy dispensing information of consenting pharmacies based on sex, year of birth, four-digit postal code and at least 50% matching Anatomical Therapeutic Classification codes. PNA was defined as not having a prescription dispensed within 30 days from the prescribing date. PNA was assessed overall and per drug class. The associations between PNA and several patient- and prescription-related characteristics were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: After matching 86 361 of 396 251 subjects (21.8%) in the Nivel-PCD records to the pharmacy records, this study included 65 877 subjects who received 181 939 new drug prescriptions. Overall, PNA was 11.5%. PNA was lowest for thyroid hormones (5.5%) and highest for proton pump inhibitors (12.8%). Several factors were associated with PNA, such as having comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.56 for >3 active diagnoses, compared to no active diagnoses) or reimbursement status (OR 2.78, 95% CI 2.65-2.92 for not reimbursed drugs compared to fully reimbursed drugs). CONCLUSIONS: A total of 11.5% of newly prescribed drugs were not dispensed. This can lead to overestimation of the actual drug exposure status when using written prescription databases.

Adherence to coprescribing of laxatives with opioids and associated characteristics in general practices in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend to prescribe a laxative with an opioid to prevent constipation. We aimed to determine the adherence by general practitioners (GPs) to this recommendation and to explore which GP- and patient related factors were associated with it from the perspective of the GP.  METHODS: We conducted an observational study using GPs' prescription data from the Nivel Primary Care Database combined with a questionnaire asking for reasons of non-adherence. The proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative was determined as primary outcome. Possible explanatory factors such as the quality of registration, the level of collaboration with the pharmacy, familiarity with the recommendation and use of a clinical decision support system were explored, as were the self-reported reasons for non-adherence (classified as either GP-related or patient-related). We assessed the association of factors with the primary outcome using univariable multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The recommendation was measured in 195 general practices. The median proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative in these practices was 54% (practice range 18-88%). None of the determinants was consistently associated with the primary outcome. GPs from 211 practices filled out the questionnaire and the most frequently mentioned reason not to prescribe a laxative was that the patient has laxatives in stock, followed by that the patient doesn't want a laxative; both were patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: There was room for improvement in following the guideline on laxative prescribing in opioid use. A main reason seemed to be that the patient refuses a laxative. Improvement measures should therefore focus on communication between GPs and patients on the relevance of co-using a laxative with opioids. Future studies need to establish the effect of such improvement measures, and determine whether reasons for non-adherence to the guideline changed over time.

Feasibility of a protocol for deprescribing antihypertensive medication in older patients in Dutch general practices.

BACKGROUND: Older patients using antihypertensive medication may experience Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), and thus benefit from deprescribing. The lack of a practical protocol may hamper deprescribing. Therefore, we aimed to develop a deprescribing protocol, based on a review of literature, combined with a feasibility test in a small number of patients. METHODS: A deprescribing protocol for general practitioners was drafted and tested in older patients using multiple antihypertensive medication in a single arm intervention. Patients were included if they were 75 years or older, were using two or more antihypertensives, had at least one ADE linked to antihypertensive medication and deprescribing was considered to be safe by their general practitioner. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients for whom one or more antihypertensive drugs were stopped or reduced in dose after 12 months of follow up while maintaining safe blood pressures. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients reporting no ADEs after 12 months and the number of deprescribed antihypertensives. Patient's opinions on deprescribing and enablers and barriers for study participation were also collected. RESULTS: Nine general practitioners included 14 patients to deprescribe antihypertensive medication using the deprescribing protocol. After 12 months antihypertensive drug use was lowered in 11 patients (79%). These patients had a mean systolic blood pressure increase of 16 mmHg and a mean diastolic blood pressure increase of 8 mmHg. Nine patients (64%) reported experiencing no ADEs anymore after twelve months. The mean number of deprescribed antihypertensives was 1.1 in all patients and 1.4 (range: 0.5 to 3.5) in patients who successfully lowered their medication. At baseline, being able to use less medication was the most frequently mentioned enabler to participate in this study. The most frequently mentioned positive experience at the end of the study was using less medication, which was in line with the most mentioned enabler to participate in this study. CONCLUSION: A protocol for deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients was considered feasible, as it resulted in a substantial degree of safe deprescribing in this pilot study. Larger studies are needed to demonstrate the effect and safety of deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients.

Gender and age concordance between patient and GP: an observational study on associations with referral behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate referral from primary to secondary care is essential for maintaining a healthcare system that is accessible and cost-effective. Social concordance can affect the doctor-patient interaction and possibly also referral behaviour. AIM: To investigate the association of gender concordance and age concordance on referral rates in primary care in The Netherlands. DESIGN & SETTING: Electronic health records data (n = 24 841) were used from 65 GPs in The Netherlands, containing referral information, which was combined with demographics of GPs and patients to investigate factors associated with referral likelihood. METHOD: Health records covered 16 different symptoms and diagnoses, categorised as 'gender sensitive', 'age sensitive', 'both age and gender sensitive', or 'neutral' based on Delphi consensus. Multi-level logistic regressions were performed to calculate the associations of gender and age concordance with referral status. RESULTS: Overall, 16.8% of patients were referred to a medical specialist. The female-male dyad (GP-patient) was associated with a higher referral likelihood (odds ratio [OR] 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 1.27; P = 0.02) compared with the female-female dyad. Gender discordance was associated with a higher referral likelihood regarding consultations involving 'gender-sensitive' symptoms and diagnoses (OR 1.21; CI = 1.02 to 1.44; P = 0.03), and in duo and group practices (OR 1.08; 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.16; P = 0.05). Age concordance was not a significant predictor of referrals in the main model nor in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Gender discordance was associated with a higher likelihood of referring. This study adds to the evidence that gender concordance affects decisions to refer, particularly with respect to symptoms and diagnoses that can be regarded as 'gender sensitive'.

Incentivizing appropriate prescribing in primary care: Development and first results of an electronic health record-based pay-for-performance scheme.

OBJECTIVE: Part of the funding of Dutch General Practitioners (GPs) care is based on pay-for-performance, including an incentive for appropriate prescribing according to guidelines in national formularies. Aim of this paper is to describe the development of an indicator and an infrastructure based on prescription data from GP Electronic Health Records (EHR), to assess the level of adherence to formularies and the effects of the pay-for-performance scheme, thereby assessing the usefulness of the infrastructure and the indicator. METHODS: Adherence to formularies was calculated as the percentage of first prescriptions by the GP for medications that were included in one of the national formularies used by the GP, based on prescription data from EHRs. Adherence scores were collected quarterly for 2018 and 2019 and subsequently sent to health insurance companies for the pay-for-performance scheme. Adherence scores were used to monitor the effect of the pay-for-performance scheme. RESULTS: 75% (2018) and 83% (2019) of all GP practicesparticipated. Adherence to formularies was around 85% or 95%, depending on the formulary used. Adherence improved significantly, especially for practices that scored lowest in 2018. DISCUSSION: We found high levels of adherence to national formularies, with small improvements after one year. The infrastructure will be used to further stimulate formulary-based prescribing by implementing more actionable and relevant indicators on adherence scores for GPs.

Newer long-acting insulin prescriptions for patients with type 2 diabetes: prevalence and practice variation in a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about prescription patterns of expensive non-recommended newer long-acting insulins (glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). AIM: To identify practice variation in, and practice- and patient-related characteristics associated with, the prescription of newer long-acting insulins to patients with T2DM in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study in Dutch general practices (Nivel Primary Care Database). METHOD: A first prescription for intermediate or long-acting insulins in 2018 was identified in patients aged ≥40 years using other T2DM drugs. Per practice, the median percentage and interquartile range (IQR) of patients with newer insulin prescriptions were calculated. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and quantify the association of patient and practice characteristics with prescriptions for newer insulins (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). RESULTS: In total, 7757 patients with prescriptions for intermediate or long-acting insulins from 282 general practices were identified. A median percentage of 21.2% (IQR 12.5-36.4%) of all patients prescribed intermediate or long-acting insulins per practice received a prescription for newer insulins. After multilevel modelling, the ICC decreased from 20% to 19%. Female sex (OR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.87), age ≥86 years compared with 40-55 years (OR 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.34), prescriptions for metformin (OR 0.66, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.82), sulfonylurea (OR 0.58, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.66), or other newer T2DM drugs (OR 3.10, 95% CI = 2.63 to 3.66), and dispensing practices (OR 1.78, 95% CI = 1.03 to 3.10) were associated with the prescription of newer insulins. CONCLUSION: The inter-practice variation in the prescription of newer insulins is large and could only be partially explained by patient- and practice-related differences. This indicates substantial opportunities for improvement.

Opioid prescribing in out-of-hours primary care in Flanders and the Netherlands: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Increased opioid prescribing has raised concern, as the benefits of pain relief not always outweigh the risks. Acute and chronic pain is often treated in a primary care out-of-hours (OOH) setting. This setting may be a driver of opioid use but the extent to which opioids are prescribed OOH is unknown. We aimed to investigate weak and strong opioid prescribing at OOH primary care services (PCS) in Flanders (Northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) and the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross sectional study using data from routine electronic health records of OOH-PCSs in Flanders and the Netherlands (2015-2019). Our primary outcome was the opioid prescribing rate per 1000 OOH-contacts per year, in total and for strong (morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxycodone and naloxone, fentanyl, tapentadol, and buprenorphine and weak opioids (codeine combinations and tramadol and combinations) and type of opioids separately. RESULTS: Opioids were prescriped in approximately 2.5% of OOH-contacts in both Flanders and the Netherlands. In Flanders, OOH opioid prescribing went from 2.4% in 2015 to 2.1% in 2017 and then increased to 2.3% in 2019. In the Netherlands, opioid prescribing increased from 1.9% of OOH-contacts in 2015 to 2.4% in 2017 and slightly decreased thereafter to 2.1% of OOH-contacts. In 2019, in Flanders, strong opioids were prescribed in 8% of the OOH-contacts with an opioid prescription. In the Netherlands a strong opioid was prescribed in 57% of these OOH-contacts. Two thirds of strong opioids prescriptions in Flanders OOH were issued for patients over 75, in the Netherlands one third was prescribed to this age group. CONCLUSION: We observed large differences in strong opioid prescribing at OOH-PCSs between Flanders and the Netherlands that are likely to be caused by differences in accessibility of secondary care, and possibly existing opioid prescribing habits. Measures to ensure judicious and evidence-based opioid prescribing need to be tailored to the organisation of the healthcare system.

Antibiotic Prescribing in Dutch Daytime and Out-of-Hours General Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Database Study.

COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in major changes in healthcare, including the prescribing of antibiotics. We aimed to monitor antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch general practice, both during daytime and out-of-hours (OOH). Routine care data were used from 379 daytime general practices (DGP) and 28 OOH-services over the period 2019-2021. Per week, we analyzed prescription rates per 100,000 inhabitants, overall, for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs and UTIs) specifically and within age categories. We assessed changes in antibiotic prescribing during different phases of the pandemic using interrupted time series analyses. Both at DGPs and OOH-services significantly fewer antibiotics were prescribed during the COVID-19 pandemic after government measures became effective. Furthermore, the number of contacts decreased in both settings. When restrictions were revoked in 2021 prescription rates increased both at DGP and OOH-services, returning to pre-pandemic levels at OOH-services, but not in DGP. Changes in antibiotic prescribing rates were prominent for RTIs and among children up to 11 years old, but not for UTIs. To conclude, while antibiotic prescribing decreased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic both in daytime and out-of-hours, the pandemic does not seem to have a lasting effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Electronic Health Record-Triggered Research Infrastructure Combining Real-world Electronic Health Record Data and Patient-Reported Outcomes to Detect Benefits, Risks, and Impact of Medication: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) represent a wealth of information for studying the benefits and risks of medical treatment. However, they are limited in scope and should be complemented by information from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an innovative research infrastructure that combines information from EHRs with patient experiences reported in questionnaires to monitor the risks and benefits of medical treatment. METHODS: We focused on the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in general practice as a use case. To develop the Benefit, Risk, and Impact of Medication Monitor (BRIMM) infrastructure, we first performed a requirement analysis. BRIMM's starting point is routinely recorded general practice EHR data that are sent to the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database weekly. Patients with OAB were flagged weekly on the basis of diagnoses and prescriptions. They were invited subsequently for participation by their general practitioner (GP), via a trusted third party. Patients received a series of questionnaires on disease status, pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, adverse drug reactions, drug adherence, and quality of life. The questionnaires and a dedicated feedback portal were developed in collaboration with a patient association for pelvic-related diseases, Bekkenbodem4All. Participating patients and GPs received feedback. An expert meeting was organized to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new research infrastructure. RESULTS: The BRIMM infrastructure was developed and implemented. In the Nivel Primary Care Database, 2933 patients with OAB from 27 general practices were flagged. GPs selected 1636 (55.78%) patients who were eligible for the study, of whom 295 (18.0% of eligible patients) completed the first questionnaire. A total of 288 (97.6%) patients consented to the linkage of their questionnaire data with their EHR data. According to experts, the strengths of the infrastructure were the linkage of patient-reported outcomes with EHR data, comparison of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, flexibility of the infrastructure, and low registration burden for GPs. Methodological weaknesses, such as susceptibility to bias, patient selection, and low participation rates among GPs and patients, were seen as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities represent usefulness for policy makers and health professionals, conditional approval of medication, data linkage to other data sources, and feedback to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The BRIMM research infrastructure has the potential to assess the benefits and safety of (medical) treatment in real-life situations using a unique combination of EHRs and patient-reported outcomes. As patient involvement is an important aspect of the treatment process, generating knowledge from clinical and patient perspectives is valuable for health care providers, patients, and policy makers. The developed methodology can easily be applied to other treatments and health problems.

Low-value pharmaceutical care among Dutch GPs: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value pharmaceutical care exists in general practice. However, the extent among Dutch GPs remains unknown. AIM: To assess the prevalence of low-value pharmaceutical care among Dutch GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study using data from patient records. METHOD: The prevalence of three types of pharmaceutical care prescribed by GPs between 2016 and 2019 were examined: topical antibiotics for conjunctivitis, benzodiazepines for non-specific lower back pain, and chronic acid-reducing medication (ARM) prescriptions. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to assess prescribing variation and the influence of patient characteristics on receiving a low-value prescription. RESULTS: Large variation in prevalence as well as practice variation was observed among the types of low-value pharmaceutical GP care examined. Between 53% and 61% of patients received an inappropriate antibiotics prescription for conjunctivitis, around 3% of patients with lower back pain received an inappropriate benzodiazepine prescription, and 88% received an inappropriate chronic ARM prescription during the years examined. The odds of receiving an inappropriate antibiotic or benzodiazepine prescription increased with age (P<0.001), but decreased for chronic inappropriate ARM prescriptions (P<0.001). Sex affected only the odds of receiving a non-indicated chronic ARM, with males being at higher risk (P<0.001). The odds of receiving an inappropriate ARM increased with increasing neighbourhood socioeconomic status (P<0.05). Increasing practice size decreased the odds of inappropriate antibiotic and benzodiazepine prescriptions (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results show that the prevalence of low-value pharmaceutical GP care varies among these three clinical problems. Significant variation in inappropriate prescribing exists between different types of pharmaceutical care - and GP practices.

Income-related differences in out-of-hours primary care telephone triage using national registration data.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is used to facilitate efficient and adequate acute care allocation, for instance in out-of-hours primary care services (OPCSs). Remote assessment of health problems is challenging and could be impeded by a patient's ambiguous formulation of his or her healthcare need. Socioeconomically vulnerable patients may experience more difficulty in expressing their healthcare need. We aimed to assess whether income differences exist in the patient's presented symptoms, assessed urgency and allocation of follow-up care in OPCS. METHOD: Data were derived from Nivel Primary Care Database encompassing electronic health record data of 1.3 million patients from 28 OPCSs in 2017 in the Netherlands. These were linked to sociodemographic population registry data. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (contacts clustered in patients), adjusted for patient characteristics (eg, age, sex), were conducted to study associations of symptoms, urgency assessment and follow-up care with patients' income (standardised for household size as socioeconomic status (SES) indicator). RESULTS: The most frequently presented symptoms deduced during triage slightly differed across SES groups, with a larger relative share of trauma in the high-income groups. No SES differences were observed in urgency assessment. After triage, low income was associated with a higher probability of receiving telephone advice and home visits, and fewer consultations at the OPCS. CONCLUSIONS: SES differences in the patient's presented symptom and in follow-up in OPCS suggest that the underlying health status and the ability to express care needs affect the telephone triage process . Further research should focus on opportunities to better tailor the telephone triage process to socioeconomically vulnerable patients.

Prevalence and incidence rate of hospital admissions related to medication between 2008 and 2013 in The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: In 2009 a Dutch guideline was published containing recommendations to reduce Hospital Admissions Related to Medications (HARMs). This study aims to examine time-trends of HARMs and their potential preventability between 2008 and 2013 in The Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective prevalence study was conducted using the Dutch PHARMO Database Network. A semi-automated pre-selection was used to make a crude identification of possible HARMs of which four samples were selected. These were independently assessed with respect to causality and potential preventability by a physician and pharmacist. The results were stratified by age into 18-64 years and 65 years and older. For these groups the net prevalences and incidence rates of HARMs and potentially preventable HARMs were calculated for the years 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013. RESULTS: Four samples of 467 (2008), 447 (2009), 446 (2011) and 408 (2013) admissions were assessed. The net prevalence of HARMs in the 18-64 years group was approximately four times smaller compared to the older group with a mean prevalence of 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]:2.4%-3.0%) and 10.2% (95%CI: 9.7%-10.7%) respectively. The potential preventability was 25.1% (18.4%-31.8%) and 48.3% (95%CI: 44.8%-51.8%), respectively. The prevalence of HARMs in both groups did not change significantly between 2008 and 2013 with 2.4% (95%CI: 1.9%-3.0%) and 10.0% (95%CI: 9.0%-11.0%) in 2008 and 3.1% (2.7%-3.5%) and 10.4% (95%CI: 9.4%-11.4%) in 2013, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to reduce HARMs, the prevalence did not decrease over time. Additional measures are therefore necessary, especially in the elderly population.

Guideline Adherence in Antibiotic Prescribing to Patients with Respiratory Diseases in Primary Care: Prevalence and Practice Variation.

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for a large part of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care. However, guidelines advise restrictive antibiotic prescribing for RTIs. Only in certain circumstances, depending on, e.g., comorbidity, are antibiotics indicated. Most studies on guideline adherence do not account for this. We aimed to assess guideline adherence for antibiotic prescribing for RTIs as well as its variation between general practices (GPs), accounting for patient characteristics. We used data from electronic health records of GPs in the Netherlands. We selected patients who consulted their GP for acute cough, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis or sore throat in 2014. For each disease episode we assessed whether, according to the GP guideline, there was an indication for antibiotics, using the patient's sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity and co-medication. We assessed antibiotic prescribing for episodes with no or an unsure indication according to the guidelines. We analysed 248,896 episodes. Diagnoses with high rates of antibiotic prescribing when there was no indication include acute tonsillitis (57%), strep throat (56%), acute bronchitis (51%) and acute sinusitis (48%). Prescribing rates vary greatly between diagnoses and practices. Reduction of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing remains a key target to tackle antimicrobial resistance. Insight into reasons for guideline non-adherence may guide successful implementation of the variety of interventions already available for GPs and patients.

Socioeconomic inequalities in out-of-hours primary care use: an electronic health records linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic position (SEP) is related to higher healthcare use in out-of-hours primary care services (OPCSs). We aimed to determine whether inequalities persist when taking the generally poorer health status of socioeconomically vulnerable individuals into account. To put OPCS use in perspective, this was compared with healthcare use in daytime general practice (DGP). METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) data of 988 040 patients in 2017 (251 DGPs, 27 OPCSs) from Nivel Primary Care Database were linked to socio-demographic data (Statistics, The Netherlands). We analyzed associations of OPCS and DGP use with SEP (operationalized as patient household income) using multilevel logistic regression. We controlled for demographic characteristics and the presence of chronic diseases. We additionally stratified for chronic disease groups. RESULTS: An income gradient was observed for OPCS use, with higher probabilities within each lower income group [lowest income, reference highest income group: odds ratio (OR) = 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-1.51]. Income inequalities in DGP use were considerably smaller (lowest income: OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Inequalities in OPCS were more substantial among patients with chronic diseases (e.g. cardiovascular disease lowest income: OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.53-1.67). The inequalities in DGP use among patients with chronic diseases were similar to the inequalities in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: Higher OPCS use suggests that chronically ill patients with lower income had additional healthcare needs that have not been met elsewhere. Our findings fuel the debate how to facilitate adequate primary healthcare in DGP and prevent vulnerable patients from OPCS use.