Due to the ageing population, the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders will continue to rise, as well as healthcare expenditure. To overcome these increasing expenditures, integration of orthopaedic care should be stimulated. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention aimed to achieve this by facilitating collaboration between primary care and the hospital, in which specialised medical care is shifted to a primary care setting. The present study aims to evaluate the referral decision following orthopaedic care in PC+ and in particular to evaluate the influence of diagnostic tests on this decision. Therefore, retrospective monitoring data of patients visiting PC+ for orthopaedic care was used. Data was divided into two periods; P1 and P2. During P2, specialists in PC+ were able to request additional diagnostic tests (such as ultrasounds and MRIs). A total of 2,438 patients visiting PC+ for orthopaedic care were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the referral decision following PC+ (back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care). Independent variables were consultation- and patient-related predictors. To describe variations in the referral decision, logistic regression modelling was used. Results show that during P2, significantly more patients were referred back to their GP. Moreover, the multivariable analysis show a significant effect of patient age on the referral decision (OR 0.86, 95% CI = 0.81– 0.91) and a significant interaction was found between the treating specialist and the period (p = 0.015) and between patient’s diagnosis and the period (p < 0.001). Despite the significant impact of the possibility of requesting additional diagnostic tests in PC+, it is important to discuss the extent to which the availability of diagnostic tests fits within the vision of PC+. In addition, selecting appropriate profiles for specialists and patients for PC+ are necessary to further optimise the effectiveness and cost of care.
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.
1 Maternity services across Europe during the pandemic has undergone changes to limit virus transmission; however, many changes are not evidence-based. 2 Although these changes were introduced to keep women, babies and healthcare staff safe, the exclusion of companions and the separation of mothers and babies is particularly antithetical to a human rights-based approach to quality care. 3 A poll of COST Action 18211 network members showed that inconsistency in the application of restrictions was high, and there were significant deviations from the recommendations of authoritative bodies. 4 Concerns have emerged that restrictions in practice may have longer term negative impacts on mothers and their families and, in particular, may impact on the long-term health of babies. 5 When practice changes deviate from evidence-based frameworks that underpin quality care, they must be monitored, appraised and evaluated to minimise unintended iatrogenic effects.
