Search

Background: Increases in opioid prescriptions have been described; however, recent trends and prescribing patterns of analgesics in Dutch general practice are largely unknown. Objective: To investigate recent changes in the number of analgesic prescriptions, and the indications for prescribing strong opioids. Furthermore, we aim to identify risk factors for chronic opioid use in Dutch general practice. Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study from 1 July 2013 to 31 June 2022, using a primary care practice based research network. Subjects: Patients with ≥1 prescription for analgesics during the study period were included. Main outcome measure: Changes in the number of prescriptions for paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in Dutch general practice during the 9-year study period. Moreover, we analyzed indications for prescribing strong opioids by the general practitioner (GP). Results: A total of 18,433 analgesic users were identified. Over time, prescriptions for paracetamol, NSAIDs and weak opioids decreased, while the number of strong opioid prescriptions increased. General practitioners prescribed more strong opioids for non-malignant pain, whereas prescriptions for malignant pain remained stable over time. Risk factors for chronic opioid use (≥90 days) included older age, lower educational level, smoking status and having a history of a musculoskeletal or psychological disorder, a malignancy or sexual, physical or psychological abuse. Conclusions: Considering the increase in strong opioid prescriptions for benign conditions, GPs need to be vigilant for patients who are at risk for chronic use. Regular monitoring and awareness for psychosocial factors in treatment of chronic pain may be key in preventing harms associated with persistent opioid use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current knowledge about the long-term outcome of depression is largely based on the results of studies performed with the small selection of patients who are referred to psychiatric professionals. However, because of the high prevalence of depression in the community and in primary care, information about the longterm outcome in these populations is indispensable if physicians are to offer the best possible care in these settings.Methods: We performed a literature search to identify relevant papers published between 1970 and 1999 on original long-term follow-up studies of depression in community and primary care populations. The included studies were of adult populations with depression based on diagnostic criteria and a follow-up of at least 5 years. Data about recurrences, relapses, psychopathology, disability, or quality of life at follow-up were examined.Results: We found 8 studies that fulfilled our criteria. The reported rates of recurrence or depression at follow-up were between 30% and 40%. Higher rates were found in the younger and older age groups. Data about other predictors of outcome, health status, and the relation between treatment and outcome did not justify any hard conclusions.Conclusions: The long-term outcome of depression in the community and in primary care is rarely studied. The results of available studies are difficult to compare because of the large differences in populations and methods. Nevertheless, these studies suggest that the longterm prognosis of depression in the community and in primary care is not as poor as in psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescription opioid use has increased steadily in many Western countries over the past two decades, most notably in the US, Canada, and most European countries, including the Netherlands. Especially the increasing use of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain has raised concerns. Most opioids in the Netherlands are prescribed in general practices. However, little is known about variation in opioid prescribing between general practices. To better understand this, we investigated practice variation in opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain between Dutch general practices. Methods: Data from 2017–2019 of approximately 10% of all Dutch general practices was used. Each year included approximately 1000000 patients distributed over approximately 380 practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with chronic (>90 days) high-dose (≥90 oral morphine equivalents) opioid prescriptions. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with chronic (<90 oral morphine equivalents) opioid prescriptions. Practice variation was expressed as the ratio of the 95th/5th percentiles and the ratio of mean top 10/bottom 10. Funnel plots were used to identify outliers. Potential factors associated with unwarranted variation were investigated by comparing outliers on practice size, patient neighbourhood socioeconomic status, and urbanicity. Results: Results were similar across all years. The magnitude of variation for chronic high-dose opioid prescriptions in 2019 was 7.51-fold (95%/5% ratio), and 15.1-fold (top 10/bottom 10 ratio). The percentage of outliers in the funnel plots varied between 13.8% and 21.7%. Practices with high chronichigh-doseopioid prescription proportions were larger, and had more patients from lower income and densely populated areas. Conclusions: There might be unwarranted practice variation in chronic high-dose opioid prescriptions in primary care, pointing at possible inappropriate use of opioids. This appears to be related to socioeconomic status, urbanicity, and practice size. Further investigation of the factors driving practice variation can provide target points for quality improvement and reduce inappropriate care and unwarranted variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality indicators (QIs) are used to monitor quality of care and adherence to osteoarthritis (OA) standards of care. Patient reported QIs can identify the most important gaps in quality of care and the most vulnerable patient groups. The aim of this study was to capture the perspective of people with knee OA (KOA) in the Netherlands on the quality of care received, and explore determinants related to lower achievement rates. Methods: We sent an online survey to all members of The Dutch Knee Panel (n = 622) of the Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, the Netherlands between September and October 2019. The survey consisted of a slightly adapted version of the "OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator" (OA-QI) questionnaire (18 items; yes, no, N/A); a rating of quality of KOA care on a 10-point scale; a question on whether or not one wanted to see change in the care for KOA; and an open-ended question asking recommendations for improvement of OA care. Furthermore, sociodemographic and disease related characteristics were collected. Pass rates for separate QIs and pass rates on patient level were calculated by dividing the number of times the indicator was achieved by the number of eligible persons for that particular indicator. Results: A total of 434 participants (70%) completed the survey. The mean (SD) pass rate (those answering "Yes") for separate QIs was 49% (20%); ranging from 15% for receiving referral for weight reduction to 75% for patient education on how to manage knee OA. The mean (SD) pass rate on patient level was 52% (23%). Presence of OA in other joints, comorbidities, and having a knee replacement were associated with higher pass rates. On average, a score of 6.5 (1.6) was given for the quality of care received, and the majority of respondents (59%) wanted change in the care for KOA. Of 231 recommendations made, most often mentioned were the need for tailoring of care (14%), more education (13%), and more empathy and support from healthcare providers (12%). Conclusion: This study found patients are only moderately satisfied with the OA care received, and showed substantial gaps between perceived quality of care for OA and internationally accepted standards. Future research should focus on the underlying reasons and provide strategies to bridge these gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality indicators (QIs) are used to monitor quality of care and adherence to osteoarthritis (OA) standards of care. Patient reported QIs can identify the most important gaps in quality of care and the most vulnerable patient groups. The aim of this study was to capture the perspective of people with knee OA (KOA) in the Netherlands on the quality of care received, and explore determinants related to lower achievement rates.Methods: We sent an online survey to all members of The Dutch Knee Panel (n = 622) of the Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, the Netherlands between September and October 2019. The survey consisted of a slightly adapted version of the "OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator" (OA-QI) questionnaire (18 items; yes, no, N/A); a rating of quality of KOA care on a 10-point scale; a question on whether or not one wanted to see change in the care for KOA; and an open-ended question asking recommendations for improvement of OA care. Furthermore, sociodemographic and disease related characteristics were collected. Pass rates for separate QIs and pass rates on patient level were calculated by dividing the number of times the indicator was achieved by the number of eligible persons for that particular indicator.Results: A total of 434 participants (70%) completed the survey. The mean (SD) pass rate (those answering "Yes") for separate QIs was 49% (20%); ranging from 15% for receiving referral for weight reduction to 75% for patient education on how to manage knee OA. The mean (SD) pass rate on patient level was 52% (23%). Presence of OA in other joints, comorbidities, and having a knee replacement were associated with higher pass rates. On average, a score of 6.5 (1.6) was given for the quality of care received, and the majority of respondents (59%) wanted change in the care for KOA. Of 231 recommendations made, most often mentioned were the need for tailoring of care (14%), more education (13%), and more empathy and support from healthcare providers (12%).Conclusion: This study found patients are only moderately satisfied with the OA care received, and showed substantial gaps between perceived quality of care for OA and internationally accepted standards. Future research should focus on the underlying reasons and provide strategies to bridge these gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) enables physicians to align healthcare with patients' wishes, reduces burdensome life-prolonging medical interventions, and potentially improves the quality of life of patients in the last phase of life. However, little objective information is available about the extent to which structured ACP conversations are held in general practice. Our aim was to examine the documentation of ACP for patients with cancer, organ failure and multimorbidity in medical records (as a proxy for ACP application) in Dutch general practice. Methods: We chose a retrospective medical record study design in seven primary care facilities. Medical records of 119 patients who died non-suddenly (55 cancer, 28 organ failure and 36 multimorbidity) were analysed. Other variables were: general characteristics, data on ACP documentation, correspondence between medical specialist and general practitioner (GP), and healthcare utilization in the last 2 years of life. Results: In 65% of the records, one or more ACP items were registered by the GP. Most often documented were aspects regarding euthanasia (35%), the preferred place of care and death (29%) and concerns and hopes towards the future (29%). Median timing of the first ACP conversation was 126 days before death (inter-quartile range (IQR) 30–316). ACP was more often documented in patients with cancer (84%) than in those with organ failure (57%) or multimorbidity (42%) (p = 0.000). Patients with cancer had the most frequent (median 3 times, IQR 2–5) and extensive (median 5 items, IQR 2–7) ACP consultations. Conclusion: Documentation of ACP items in medical records by GPs is present, however limited, especially in patients with multimorbidity or organ failure. We recommend more attention for – and documentation of – ACP in daily practice, in order to start anticipatory conversations in time and address the needs of all people living with advanced conditions in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past decades, health care services for pancreatic surgery were reorganized. Volume norms were applied with the result that only a limited number of expert centers perform pancreatic surgery. As a result of this centralization of pancreatic surgery, the patient journey of patients with pancreatic tumors has become multi-institutional. To illustrate, patients are referred to a center of expertise for pancreatic surgery whereas other parts of pancreatic care, such as chemotherapy, take place in local hospitals. This fragmentation of health care services could affect continuity of care (COC). The aim of this study was to assess COC perceived by patients in a pancreatic care network and investigate correlations with patient-and care-related characteristics.Methods: This is a pilot study in which patients with (pre) malignant pancreatic tumors discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board in a Dutch tertiary hospital were asked to participate. Patients were asked to fill out the Nijmegen Continuity of Care-questionnaire (NCQ) (5-point Likert scale). Additionally, their patient-and care-related data were retrieved from medical records. Correlations of NCQ score and patient-and care-related characteristics were calculated with Spearman's correlation coefficient.Results: In total, 44 patients were included (92% response rate). Pancreatic cancer was the predominant diagnosis (32%). Forty percent received a repetition of diagnostic investigations in the tertiary hospital. Mean scores for personal continuity were 3.55 ± 0.74 for GP, 3.29 ± 0.91 for the specialist and 3.43 ± 0.65 for collaboration between GPs and specialists. Overall COC was scored with a mean 3.38 ± 0.72. No significant correlations were observed between NCQ score and certain patient-or care-related characteristics.Conclusion: Continuity of care perceived by patients with pancreatic tumors was scored as moderate. This outcome supports the need to improve continuity of care within multi-institutional pancreatic care networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early identification of palliative patients is challenging. The Surprise Question (SQ1; Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within 12 months?) is widely used to identify palliative patients. However, its predictive value is low. Therefore, we added a second question (SQ2) to SQ1: 'Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?' We studied the accuracy of this double surprise question (DSQ) in a general practice. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study with retrospective medical record review in a general practice in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Two general practitioners (GPs) answered both questions for all 292 patients aged ≥75 years (mean age 84 years). Primary outcome was 1-year death, secondary outcomes were aspects of palliative care. Results: SQ1 was answered with 'no' for 161/292 patients. Of these, SQ2 was answered with 'yes' in 22 patients. Within 12 months 26 patients died, of whom 24 had been identified with SQ1 (sensitivity: 92%, specificity: 49%). Ten of them were also identified with SQ2 (sensitivity: 42%, specificity: 91%). The latter group had more contacts with their GP and more palliative care aspects were discussed. Conclusions: The DSQ appears a feasible and easy applicable screening tool in general practice. It is highly effective in predicting patients in high need for palliative care and using it helps to discriminate between patients with different life expectancies and palliative care needs. Further research is necessary to confirm the findings of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the current guideline adherence by general practitioners (GPs) for work-up and subsequent referral from primary to secondary care for patients suffering from infertility?Summary Answer: Guideline adherence by GPs concerning infertility was 9.2% in couples referred.What Is Known Already: Adherence to recommendations can decrease unnecessary referral, diagnostics and treatments, and consequently result in lower expenditures. Moreover, patients can be saved from unnecessary hospital visits, emotional burden and out of pocket costs.Study Design, Size, and Duration: A retrospective cohort study among 306 patients referred for basic fertility work-up between January 2011 and June 2013 from primary care to a secondary care teaching hospital or a tertiary hospital with IVF facilities.Participants/materials, Setting and Methods: Couples were eligible to participate when there was no previous referral for fertility problems and the duration of the child wish was <2 years. Data to assess guideline adherence were collected from the referral letter and the medical records. A patient questionnaire was used to determine patients' general and fertility-related characteristics.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The GP performed a Chlamydia Antibody Titre (CAT) testing and semen analysis as recommended in 15.9% and 42.2% of the referred patients, respectively. According to the guideline, 39% of the couples were under referred (i.e. not immediately referred as recommended), 8.8% were unnecessarily referred and the CAT and semen analysis were unnecessarily repeated in secondary care in 80.0% and 57.1% of cases, respectively.Limitations Reasons For Caution: We could not include non-referred patients with expectant management in primary care, an unknown number of whom became pregnant in this period. This may have resulted in an underestimation of primary care performance.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our findings show that guideline adherence concerning work-up and subsequent referral for fertility problems is low. The influence of patient demands for referral remains largely unknown. Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence should be determined to develop interventions to improve guideline adherence in the areas of work-up and referral for fertility care and to diminish duplicate tests in secondary care.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Funded by CZ, a Dutch healthcare insurer (grant number AFVV 11-232). CZ had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: None.Trial Registration Number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Physical symptoms of skin diseases have been shown to negatively affect patients’ wellbeing. Although insight into physical symptoms accompanying skin diseases is relevant for the management and treatment of skin diseases, the prevalence of physical symptoms among patients with skin diseases is a rather unexplored territory. Objectives The goal of the present study was to examine the prevalence of physical symptoms of itch, pain and fatigue in patients with skin diseases. Methods On the basis of a systematic morbidity registration system in primary care, questionnaires were sent to 826 patients with skin diseases. Eventually, questionnaires from 492 patients were suitable for our analyses. Results Results indicated that patients with skin diseases particularly experience symptoms of itch and fatigue. Approximately 50% of all patients report experiencing these symptoms and about 25% experience these symptoms as relatively severe. Pain was relatively less frequently reported by 23% of all patients, and was on average somewhat less intense. The physical symptoms showed relatively strong correlations with disease-related quality of life and self-reported disease severity. In contrast, only moderate correlations were found with comorbidity and demographic variables, which suggests that the physical symptoms of itch, pain and fatigue are consequences of the skin diseases. Conclusions Itch and fatigue and, to a somewhat lesser extent, pain have a high prevalence among patients with skin diseases. Clinicians should be encouraged to carefully assess itch, pain and fatigue in patients with skin diseases, and where appropriate focus treatment to these symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Skin diseases are a substantial part of the problems dealt with by general practitioners. Although the psychosocial consequences of skin diseases in secondary care has been extensively studied, little is known about the psychosocial well-being of patients with skin diseases in primary care. Objective To investigate the psychosocial well-being of patients with skin diseases in primary care. Patients/methods Questionnaires about the psychosocial consequences of skin diseases were sent to patients with a skin disease who were registered within a research network (continuous morbidity registration) of general practices that continuously have recorded morbidity data since 1971. Questionnaires completed by 532 patients were eventually suitable for analyses. Results Compared with the general population, patients with skin diseases reported significantly lower scores for psychosocial well-being. Furthermore, a lower psychosocial wellbeing was significantly related with higher levels of disease-severity, lower disease-related quality of life, longer disease duration, more comorbidity and more physical symptoms of itch, pain and fatigue. After demographic variables and comorbidity were controlled for, sequential regression analyses showed that disease duration, disease severity and physical symptoms (itch, pain and fatigue) were significant predictors of psychosocial well-being. Conclusion The psychosocial well-being of patients with skin diseases in primary care is lower than that of the general population. Special attention has to be directed to those patients with lowered psychosocial well-being who might be at risk of developing severe psychosocial impairments such as clinical depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index.To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program.We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin.Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0·65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0·001). The mean difference was 0·12 μg/L (SD 0·26; 95% CI 0·04, 0·19,P = 0·005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended.PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]