Background: The substitution of healthcare is a way to control rising healthcare costs. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention of the Dutch ‘Blue Care’ pioneer site aims to achieve this feat by facilitating consultations with medical specialists in the primary care setting. One of the specialties involved is dermatology. This study explores referral decisions following dermatology care in PC+ and the influence of predictive patient and consultation characteristics on this decision. Methods: This retrospective study used clinical data of patients who received dermatology care in PC+ between January 2015 and March 2017. The referral decision following PC+, (i.e., referral back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care) was the primary outcome. Stepwise logistic regression modelling was used to describe variations in the referral decisions following PC+, with patient age and gender, number of PC+ consultations, patient diagnosis and treatment specialist as the predicting factors. Results: A total of 2952 patients visited PC+ for dermatology care. Of those patients with a registered referral, 80.2% (N = 2254) were referred back to the GP, and 19.8% (N = 558) were referred to outpatient hospital care. In the multivariable model, only the treating specialist and patient’s diagnosis independently influenced the referral decisions following PC+. Conclusion: The aim of PC+ is to reduce the number of referrals to outpatient hospital care. According to the results, the treating specialist and patient diagnosis influence referral decisions. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to discuss and improve specialist and patient profiles for PC+ to further optimise the effectiveness of the initiative.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
Rationale, aims and objective: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). Methods: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. Results: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.
DOCUMENT
The generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model is endorsed worldwide. In the Netherlands, the competencies and profile of the generalist provider of palliative care has been described on all professional levels in nursing and medicine. However, there is no clear description of what specialized expertise in palliative care entails, whereas this is important in order for generalists to know who they can consult in complex palliative care situations and for timely referral of patients to palliative care specialists. Objective: To gain insight in the roles and competencies attributed to palliative care specialists as opposed to generalists. Methods: A scoping review was completed based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines to explore the international literature on the role and competence description of specialist and expert care professionals in palliative care. Databases Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco) and Web of Science Core Collection were consulted. The thirty-nine included articles were independently screened, reviewed and charted. Thematic codes were attached based on two main outcomes roles and competencies. Results: Five roles were identified for the palliative care specialist: care provider, care consultant, educator, researcher and advocate. Leadership qualities are found to be pivotal for every role. The roles were further specified with competencies that emerged from the analysis. The title, roles and competencies attributed to the palliative care specialist can mostly be applied to both medical and nursing professionals. Discussion: The roles and competencies derived from this scoping review correspond well with the seven fields of competence for medical/nursing professionals in health care of the CanMEDS guide. A specialist is not only distinguished from a generalist on patient-related care activities but also on an encompassing level. Clarity on what it entails to be a specialist is important for improving education and training for specialists. Conclusion: This scoping review adds to our understanding of what roles and competencies define the palliative care specialist. This is important to strengthen the position of the specialist and their added value to generalists in a generalist-plus-specialist model
DOCUMENT
Objectives: To understand healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of nurses' potential or ideal roles in pharmaceutical care (PC). Design: Qualitative study conducted through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Setting: Between December 2018 and October 2019, interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals of 14 European countries in four healthcare settings: hospitals, community care, mental health and long-term residential care. Participants: In each country, pharmacists, physicians and nurses in each of the four settings were interviewed. Participants were selected on the basis that they were key informants with broad knowledge and experience of PC. Data collection and analysis: All interviews were conducted face to face. Each country conducted an initial thematic analysis. Consensus was reached through a face-to-face discussion of all 14 national leads. Results: 340 interviews were completed. Several tasks were described within four potential nursing responsibilities, that came up as the analysis themes, being: 1) monitoring therapeutic/adverse effects of medicines, 2) monitoring medicines adherence, 3) decision making on medicines, including prescribing 4) providing patient education/information. Nurses' autonomy varied across Europe, from none to limited to a few tasks and emergencies to a broad range of tasks and responsibilities. Intended level of autonomy depended on medicine types and level of education. Some changes are needed before nursing roles can be optimised and implemented in practice. Lack of time, shortage of nurses, absence of legal frameworks and limited education and knowledge are main threats to European nurses actualising their ideal role in PC. Conclusions: European nurses have an active role in PC. Respondents reported positive impacts on care quality and patient outcomes when nurses assumed PC responsibilities. Healthcare professionals expect nurses to report observations and assessments. This key patient information should be shared and addressed by the interprofessional team. The study evidences the need of a unique and consensus-based PC framework across Europe.
LINK
Het ontwerp van een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van twee interventiemethodes (U-PRIM en U-CARE) voor een proactieve zorg voor kwetsbare ouderen. Uitdagingen en methodologische kwesties worden uitgelicht.
DOCUMENT
In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarifed what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care special‑ist. In addition to generalists and specialists, ‘experts’ in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. Methods A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. Results Eight hundred ffty-four HCPs flled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than fve years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and dis‑ tinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the impor‑tance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defnes a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. Conclusions Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts difer, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs fnd it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to gen‑eralists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Depression in later life is a common mental disorder with a prevalence rate of between 3% and 35% for minor depression and approximately 2% for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The most common treatment modalities for MDD are antidepressant medication and psychological interventions. Recently, Behavioral Activation (BA) has gained renewed attention as an effective treatment modality in MDD. Although BA is considered an easy accessible intervention for both patients and health care workers (such as nurses), there is no research on the effectiveness of the intervention in inpatient depressed elderly.The aim of study, described in the present proposal, is to examine the effects of BA when executed by nurses in an inpatient population of elderly persons with MDD. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multi-center cluster randomized controlled trial. BA, described as The Systematic Activation Method (SAM) will be compared with Treatment as Usual (TAU). We aim to include ten mental health care units in the Netherlands that will each participate as a control unit or an experimental unit. The patients will meet the following criteria: (1) a primary diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) according to the DSM-IV criteria; (2) 60 years or older; (3) able to read and write in Dutch; (4) have consented to participate via the informed consent procedure. Based on an effect size d = 0.7, we intend to include 51 participants per condition (n = 102). The SAM will be implemented within the experimental units as an adjunctive therapy to Treatment As Usual (TAU). All patients will be assessed at baseline, after eight weeks, and after six months. The primary outcome will be the level of depression measured by means of the Beck Depression Inventory (Dutch version). Other assessments will be activity level, mastery, costs, anxiety and quality of life. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge this is the first study to test the effect of Behavioral Activation as a nursing intervention in an inpatient elderly population. This research has been approved by the medical research ethics committee for health-care settings in the Netherlands (No. NL26878.029.09) and is listed in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR No.1809).
DOCUMENT
Background: Due to the increasing number of older people with multi-morbidity, the demand for outpatient geriatric rehabilitation (OGR) will also increase. Objective: To assess the effects of OGR on the primary outcome functional performance (FP) and secondary outcomes: length of in-patient stay, re-admission rate, patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. We also aim to describe the organisation and content of OGR. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Five databases were queried from inception to July 2022. We selected randomised controlled trials written in English, focusing on multidisciplinary interventions related to OGR, included participants aged ≥65 and reported one of the main outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on FP, patients’ quality of life, length of stay and re-admissions. The structural, procedural and environmental aspects of OGR were systematically mapped. Results: We selected 24 studies involving 3,405 participants. The meta-analysis showed no significant effect on the primary outcome FP (activity). It demonstrated a significant effect of OGR on shortening length of in-patient stay (P = 0.03, MD = −2.41 days, 95%CI: [−4.61—0.22]). Frequently used elements of OGR are: inpatient start of OGR with an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, close cooperation with primary care, an OGR coordinator, individual goal setting and education for both patient and caregiver. Conclusion: This review showed that OGR is as effective as usual care on FP activity. It shows low certainty of evidence for OGR being effective in reducing the length of inpatient stay. Further research is needed on the various frequently used elements of OGR
DOCUMENT
