Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
Nationwide and across the globe, the quality, affordability, and accessibility of home-based healthcare are under pressure. This issue stems from two main factors: the rapidly growing ageing population and the concurrent scarcity of healthcare professionals. Older people aspire to live independently in their homes for as long as possible. Additionally, governments worldwide have embraced policies promoting “ageing in place,” reallocating resources from institutions to homes and prioritising home-based services to honour the desire of older people to continue living at home while simultaneously addressing the rising costs associated with traditional institutional care.Considering the vital role of district nursing care and the fact that the population of older people in need of assistance at home is growing, it becomes clear that district nursing care plays a crucial role in primary care. The aim of this thesis is twofold: 1) to strengthen the evidence base for district nursing care; and 2) to explore the use of outcomes for learning and improving in district nursing care. The first part of this thesis examines the current delivery of district nursing care and explores its challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen the evidence base and get a better understanding of district nursing care. Alongside the goal of strengthening the evidence for district nursing care, the second part of this thesis explores the use of patient outcomes for learning and improving district nursing care. It focuses on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes relevant to district nursing care, their current measurement in practice, and what is needed to use outcomes for learning and improving district nursing practice.
Purpose: The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers’ views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers. Results: Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs’ accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types. Conclusions: The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs. Implications for cancer survivors: Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
