Search

Abstract BackgroundIn our aging population, primary care is under pressure to remain accessible to all. Effective use of digital health care could potentially lower general practitioners’ (GPs) workload. Some general practices are already implementing a digital health platform as a primary method to contact their patients. However, it is unknown how older people experience this novel way to communicate with their GP. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to study the experiences of patients aged 65 years and older in general practices who use digital health as a primary communication tool. The secondary aims were to identify barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health care and whether a practice focus on digital health influences older patients’ choice to enlist. MethodsWe invited all patients aged 65 years and older at 2 general practices in Amsterdam that work with a novel digital health platform. We used purposive sampling to select a heterogeneous group of patients in terms of age, sex, level of education, digital literacy, and experiences with the digital app of their general practice. We conducted 18 semistructured interviews from May through July 2023. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. ResultsWe generated three themes: (1) experiences of older people with digital health care in general practice, (2) impact of individual factors on digital health experiences, and (3) reasons for choosing a digitally oriented general practice. Participants reported both positive and negative experiences. The main perceived advantages of the digital health platform were increased accessibility, direct GP contact without an intermediary, and saving time through asynchronous communication. The disadvantages mentioned were log-in difficulties and problems with the automated explanatory questionnaire. Individual factors such as age, digital literacy, and expectations of general practice care seemed to impact people’s experiences and could act as barriers or facilitators for using digital health. Reasons for older patients to enlist at a general practice were mainly practical. The digital orientation of the practice hardly played a role in this choice. ConclusionsOlder patients in general practice see benefits to using a digital health platform that offers 2-way chat-based communication between the patient and GP. We found that individual factors such as skills, norms and values, attitudes toward digitalization, and expectations of general practice care impacted older patients’ experiences with digital health care. For many older participants, the digital profile of the general practice did not play a role in their choice to enlist. Further improvement of digital health platforms will be necessary to ensure digital health for all in general practice.

Aim To evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent intervention for improving personal continuity for older patients in general practice.Design A cluster randomised three-wedged, pragmatic trial during 18 months.Setting 32 general practices in the Netherlands.Participants 221 general practitioners (GPs), practice assistants and other practice staff were included. Practices were instructed to include a random sample of 1050 patients aged 65 or older at baseline and 12-month follow-up.Intervention The intervention took place at practice level and included opTimise persOnal cOntinuity for oLder (TOOL)-kit: a toolbox containing 34 strategies to improve personal continuity.Outcomes Data were collected at baseline and at six 3-monthly follow-up measurements. Primary outcome measure was experienced continuity of care at the patient level measured by the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) with subscales for personal continuity (GP knows me and GP shows commitment) and team/cross-boundary continuity at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were measured in GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff and included work stress and satisfaction and perceived level of personal continuity. In addition, a process evaluation was undertaken among GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.Results No significant effect of the intervention was observed on NCQ subscales GP knows me (adjusted mean difference: 0.05 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.15), p=0.383), GP shows commitment (0.03 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.14), p=0.668) and team/cross-boundary (0.01 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.08), p=0.911). All secondary outcomes did not change significantly during follow-up. Process evaluation among GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff showed adequate acceptability of the intervention and partial implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a high perceived workload.Conclusion Although participants viewed TOOL-kit as a practical and accessible toolbox, it did not improve personal continuity as measured with the NCQ. The absence of an effect may be explained by the incomplete implementation of TOOL-kit into practice and the choice of general outcome measures instead of outcomes more specific for the intervention.Trial registration number International Clinical Trials registry Platform (ICTRP), trial NL8132 (URL: ICTRP Search Portal (who.int).

Introduction Vertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP’s diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders (‘How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?’) has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap.Methods and analysis We will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière’s disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition.Ethics and dissemination The study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817—NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN97250704.

BackgroundGiven that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. MethodsThe Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. ResultsA total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by

BackgroundIdentification of community-dwelling older adults at risk of unplanned hospitalizations is of importance to facilitate preventive interventions. Our objective was to review and appraise the methodological quality and predictive performance of prediction models for predicting unplanned hospitalizations in community-dwelling older adults.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from August 2013 to January 2021. Additionally, we checked references of the identified articles for the inclusion of relevant publications and added studies from two previous reviews that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. We included prospective and retrospective studies with any follow-up period that recruited adults aged 65 and over and developed a prediction model predicting unplanned hospitalizations. We included models with at least one (internal or external) validation cohort. The models had to be intended to be used in a primary care setting. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction following recommendations of the CHARMS checklist, while quality assessment was performed using the PROBAST tool. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Prediction horizon ranged from 4.5 months to 4 years. Most frequently included variables were specific medical diagnoses (n = 11), previous hospital admission (n = 11), age (n = 11), and sex or gender (n = 8). Predictive performance in terms of area under the curve ranged from 0.61 to 0.78. Models developed to predict potentially preventable hospitalizations tended to have better predictive performance than models predicting hospitalizations in general. Overall, risk of bias was high, predominantly in the analysis domain.ConclusionsModels developed to predict preventable hospitalizations tended to have better predictive performance than models to predict all-cause hospitalizations. There is however substantial room for improvement on the reporting and analysis of studies. We recommend better adherence to the TRIPOD guidelines.

Background: Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) with physiotherapy support, known as blended VR, was effective in reducing vestibular symptoms in a recent randomised controlled trial. Blended VR is a complex intervention comprised of physiotherapeutic visits, the vertigo training website, and VR exercises. Because of these interacting components, it is important to understand how blended VR works, for whom it works best, and how it should ideally be delivered. Aim: To investigate the experiences of both patients and physiotherapists with blended internet-based VR. Design & setting: A qualitative interview study was performed with patients who received blended internet-based VR with physiotherapy support, and physiotherapists who provided this support. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 patients and eight physiotherapists after the 6-month follow-up of the randomised trial. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Results: According to both patients and physiotherapists, the physiotherapist visits were useful in providing personal attention, helping patients safely execute exercises, and improving patients’ adherence to therapy. Some patients said they did not need physiotherapist support and, according to physiotherapists, both the necessity and the optimal way to deliver guidance differed greatly between patients. The Vertigo Training website and exercises provided patients with a sense of control over their symptoms. Patients reported that the VR exercises were easy to perform and most patients continued to use them long after the trial ended. Conclusion: In blended VR, physiotherapeutic visits appear to offer benefits above the vertigo training website and VR exercises alone. Physiotherapy support may best be used when individually tailored.

Objectives To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stand-alone and blended internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in comparison with usual care (UC) for chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice.Design Economic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 59 Dutch general practices.Participants 322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.Interventions Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, this intervention was supplemented with face-to-face physiotherapy support. UC group participants received usual general practice care without restrictions.Main outcome measures Societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement).Results Mean societal costs in both the stand-alone and blended VR groups were statistically non-significantly higher than in the UC group (mean difference (MD) €504, 95% CI −1082 to 2268; and €916, 95% CI −663 to 2596). Both stand-alone and blended VR groups reported non-significantly more QALYs than the UC group (MD 0.02, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.04; and 0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.03), and significantly better VSS-SF Scores (MD 3.8 points, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0; and 3.3 points, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). For stand-alone VR compared with UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €24 161/QALY, €600/point improvement in VSS-SF and €8000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. For blended VR versus UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €123 335/QALY, €900/point improvement in VSS-SF and €24 000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF.Conclusion Stand-alone and blended internet-based VR non-significantly increased QALYs and significantly reduced vestibular symptoms compared with UC, while costs in both groups were non-significantly higher. Stand-alone VR has the highest probability to be cost-effective compared with UC.Trial registration number The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

Objectives To develop and internally validate prediction models to assess treatment success of both stand-alone and blended online vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome.Design Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Setting 59 general practices in The Netherlands.Participants 202 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome who received either stand-alone VR (98) or blended VR (104). Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, the same intervention was supplemented with physiotherapy support.Main outcome measures Successful treatment was defined as: clinically relevant improvement of (1) vestibular symptoms (≥3 points improvement Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form); (2) vestibular-related disability (>11 points improvement Dizziness Handicap Inventory); and (3) both vestibular symptoms and vestibular-related disability. We assessed performance of the predictive models by applying calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and applied internal validation.Results Improvement of vestibular symptoms, vestibular-related disability or both was seen in 121, 81 and 64 participants, respectively. We generated predictive models for each outcome, resulting in different predictors in the final models. Calibration for all models was adequate with non-significant Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, but the discriminative ability of the final predictive models was poor (AUC 0.54 to 0.61). None of the identified models are therefore suitable for use in daily general practice to predict treatment success of online VR.Conclusion It is difficult to predict treatment success of internet-based VR and it remains unclear who should be treated with stand-alone VR or blended VR. Because we were unable to develop a useful prediction model, the decision to offer stand-alone or blended VR should for now be based on availability, cost effectiveness and patient preference.Trial registration number The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

OBJECTIVES:Dizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care. DESIGN:Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING:45 primary care practices in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:168 participants aged ≥65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ≥30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice. INTERVENTIONS:The multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ≥3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs. RESULTS:Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ≥2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p

The diagnostic approach to dizzy, older patients is not straightforward as many organ systems can be involved and evidence for diagnostic strategies is lacking. A first differentiation in diagnostic subtypes or profiles may guide the diagnostic process of dizziness and can serve as a classification system in future research. In the literature this has been done, but based on pathophysiological reasoning only.To establish a classification of diagnostic profiles of dizziness based on empirical data.Cross-sectional study.417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 primary care physicians in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008.We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. We used the results of these tests in a principal component analysis for exploration, data-reduction and finally differentiation into diagnostic dizziness profiles.Demographic data and the results of the tests yielded 221 variables, of which 49 contributed to the classification of dizziness into six diagnostic profiles, that may be named as follows: "frailty", "psychological", "cardiovascular", "presyncope", "non-specific dizziness" and "ENT". These explained 32% of the variance.Empirically identified components classify dizziness into six profiles. This classification takes into account the heterogeneity and multicausality of dizziness and may serve as starting point for research on diagnostic strategies and can be a first step in an evidence based diagnostic approach of dizzy older patients.

Abstract Background Among older people undiagnosed and untreated vision impairment and blindness are common. The leading causes are uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Vision problems are associated with a lower quality of life, several health problems, and a higher chance of falling accidents and fractures. To eliminate avoidable vision impairment and blindness, targeted eye screening programs are recommended. Older patients, receiving home healthcare, have not yet been considered as a population at risk who could benefit from eye screening. Methods A cluster-randomized controlled trial will be conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of online nurse-assisted eye screening in home healthcare, compared to care as usual, in reducing avoidable vision impairment. A healthcare and societal perspective will be used. The study will be performed in collaboration with several home healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The online eye screening consists of near and distance visual acuity, followed by an Amsler grading test. Measurements in both groups will take place at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. A total of 240 participants will be recruited. Older men and women (65 +), who receive home-based nursing and are cognitively able to participate, will be included. The primary outcome will be the change of two lines or more on the Colenbrander-1 M visual acuity chart between baseline and 12-month follow-up. Discussion An eye screening for populations at risk contributes to the detection of undiagnosed and untreated vision impairment. This may reduce the health-related consequences of vision loss and the high economic burden associated with vision impairment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06058637. Registered on 27 September 2023.

Background: : Qualitative research shows barriers in access to healthcare for persons with a migration background, possibly leading to healthcare inequalities. We aimed to compare healthcare use between older community-dwelling persons with a migration background and native Dutch persons with dementia. Methods: : Observational cohort study using electronic health records of NIVEL Primary Care Database (2013–2014) linked to nationwide administrative registries managed by Statistics Netherlands. We included all community-dwelling persons with dementia in the Netherlands aged 65 years and older. Negative binomial and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess differences in healthcare use outcomes. The largest migrant groups (persons born in Surinam, Turkey and Morocco) were studied separately. Results: : 138,864 persons with dementia were included in the study, whereof 3,991 persons with a migration background and 132,477 native Dutch persons. Moroccan-born persons showed 1.46 higher odds of having an unplanned hospital admission compared to native Dutch persons (95 % Confidence Interval [CI] 1.22–1.74). Persons with a migration background used less professional home care (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.55, 95 %CI 0.51–0.59), and received less home visits from their general practitioner (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.43–0.57) than native Dutch persons. Moroccan-born persons had more often an out-of-hours general practitioner consultation compared to native Dutch persons (Incidence Rate Ratio 1.36, 95 %CI 1.18–1.57). Conclusions: : We found significant quantitative differences in healthcare use between persons with a migration background and native Dutch persons with dementia. Further research is needed to gain insight into the reasons of these differences, with consideration of specific migration background.

Abstract Background Vestibular rehabilitation is a safe and effective exercise-based treatment for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms. However, it is underused in general practice. Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (Vertigo Training), which has proven to be effective as well, was developed to increase uptake. We now aim to improve the quality of care for patients with vestibular symptoms by carrying out a nationwide implementation of Vertigo Training. We will evaluate the effect of this implementation on primary care. Methods Our implementation study consists of three successive phases: 1) We will perform a retrospective observational cohort study and a qualitative interview study to evaluate the current management of patients with vestibular symptoms in primary care, in particular anti-vertigo drug prescriptions, and identify areas for improvement. We will use the results of this phase to tailor our implementation strategy to the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients. 2) This phase entails the implementation of Vertigo Training using a multicomponent implementation strategy, containing: guideline adaptations; marketing strategy; pharmacotherapeutic audit and feedback meetings; education; clinical decision support; and local champions. 3) In this phase, we will evaluate the effect of the implementation in three ways. a. Interrupted time series. We will use routine primary care data from adult patients with vestibular symptoms to compare the number of GP consultations for vestibular symptoms, referrals for vestibular rehabilitation, prescriptions for anti-vertigo drugs, and referrals to physiotherapy and secondary care before and after implementation. b. Prospective observational cohort study. We will extract data from Vertigo Training to investigate the usage and the characteristics of participants. We will also determine whether these characteristics are associated with successful treatment. c. Qualitative interview study. We will conduct interviews with GPs to explore their experiences with the implementation. Discussion This is one of the first studies to evaluate the effect of a nationwide implementation of an innovative treatment on Dutch primary care. Implementation strategies have been researched before, but it remains unclear which ones are the most effective and under what conditions. We therefore expect to gain relevant insights for future projects that aim to implement innovations in primary care.

Abstract Background While frank discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with depression is important for the prevention of suicide, suicide exploration of General Practitioners (GPs) is suboptimal. This study aimed to assess whether an intervention that prompts pop-up screens nudges GPs to more frequently explore suicidal thoughts over the course of two years. Methods From January 2017 to December 2018, the intervention was incorporated in the information system of the Dutch general practice sentinel network. New registration of an episode of depression triggered a pop-up screen referring to a questionnaire about GPs’ behaviour with regard to exploring suicidal thoughts. In two years, 625 questionnaires were completed by GPs and analysed using multilevel logistic regression analyses. Results Compared to the first year, GPs were 50% more likely to explore suicidal thoughts among patients in the second year (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.01–2.16). When adjusting for patients’ gender and age we found that the effect of the pop-up screens disappeared (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.90–1.97). Suicide exploration occurred less frequently in women than in men (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43–0.98) and in older compared to younger patients (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96–0.98 per year older). In addition, 26% of variation in suicide exploration was because of differences in general practice. There was no evidence that general practices developed differently over time. Conclusions Although low cost and easy to administer, the pop-up system was not effective in nudging GPs to explore suicidality more frequently. We encourage studies to test whether implementing these nudges as part of a multifaceted approach will lead to a stronger effect. Moreover, we recommend researchers to include more variables, such as work experience or previous mental health training, to better understand the effects of the intervention on GPs’ behaviour.

Abstract Background Accurate identification of older persons at risk of unplanned hospital visits can facilitate preventive interventions. Several risk scores have been developed to identify older adults at risk of unplanned hospital visits. It is unclear whether risk scores developed in one country, perform as well in another. This study validates seven risk scores to predict unplanned hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits in older home care recipients from six countries. Methods We used the IBenC sample (n = 2446), a cohort of older home care recipients from six countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy and The Netherlands) to validate four specific risk scores (DIVERT, CARS, EARLI and previous acute admissions) and three frailty indicators (CHESS, Fried Frailty Criteria and Frailty Index). Outcome measures were unplanned hospital admissions, ED visits or any unplanned hospital visits after 6 months. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Performance was determined by assessing calibration and discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)). Results Risk score performance varied across countries. In Iceland, for any unplanned hospital visits DIVERT and CARS reached a fair predictive value (AUC 0.74 [0.68–0.80] and AUC 0.74 [0.67–0.80]), respectively). In Finland, DIVERT had fair performance predicting ED visits (AUC 0.72 [0.67–0.77]) and any unplanned hospital visits (AUC 0.73 [0.67–0.77]). In other countries, AUCs did not exceed 0.70. Conclusions Geographical validation of risk scores predicting unplanned hospital visits in home care recipients showed substantial variations of poor to fair performance across countries. Unplanned hospital visits seem considerably dependent on healthcare context. Therefore, risk scores should be validated regionally before applied to practice. Future studies should focus on identification of more discriminative predictors in order to develop more accurate risk scores.

Abstract Background Continuity of care, in particular personal continuity, is a core principle of general practice and is associated with many benefits such as a better patient-provider relationship and lower mortality. However, personal continuity is under pressure due to changes in society and healthcare. This affects older patients more than younger patients. As the number of older patients will double the coming decades, an intervention to optimise personal continuity for this group is highly warranted. Methods Following the UK Medical Research Council framework for complex Interventions, we will develop and evaluate an intervention to optimise personal continuity for older patients in general practice. In phase 0, we will perform a literature study to provide the theoretical basis for the intervention. In phase I we will define the components of the intervention by performing surveys and focus groups among patients, general practitioners, practice assistants and practice nurses, concluded by a Delphi study among members of our group. In phase II, we will test and finalise the intervention with input from a pilot study in two general practices. In phase III, we will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomised pragmatic trial. The primary outcome measure is continuity of care from the patients’ perspective, measured by the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures are level of implementation, barriers and facilitators for implementation, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. In phase IV, we will establish the conditions for large-scale implementation. Discussion This is the first study to investigate an intervention for improving personal continuity for older patients in general practice. If proven effective, our intervention will enable General practitioners to improve the quality of care for their increasing population of older patients. The pragmatic design of the study will enable evaluation in real-life conditions, facilitating future implementation. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register, trial NL8132 . Registered 2 November 2019.

Abstract Background Since anxiety and depressive disorders often recur, self-management competencies are crucial for improving the long-term course of anxiety and depressive disorders. However, few relapse prevention programmes are available that focus on improving self-management. E-health combined with personal contact with a mental health professional in general practice might be a promising approach for relapse prevention. In this protocol, the GET READY (Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression) study will be described in which a relapse prevention programme is developed, implemented and evaluated. The aim of the study is to determine patients’ usage of the programme and the associated course of their symptoms, to examine barriers and facilitators of implementation, and to assess patients’ satisfaction with the programme. Methods Participants are discharged from mental healthcare services, and are in complete or partial remission. They receive access to an E-health platform, combined with regular contact with a mental health professional in general practices. Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Also, semi-structured qualitative individual interviews and focus group interviews will be conducted with patients and mental health professionals. Discussion This mixed-methods observational cohort study will provide insights into the use of a relapse prevention programme in relation to the occurrence of symptoms, as well as in its implementation and evaluation. Using the results of this study, the relapse prevention programme can be adapted in accordance with the needs of patients and mental health professionals. If this programme is shown to be acceptable, a randomized controlled trial may be conducted to test its efficacy. Trial registration Retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7574; 25 October 2018).

Abstract Background Due to the raised public awareness of Lyme Borreliosis (LB), its increased incidence and the increased availability of serological tests, the demand for diagnostic testing on LB has increased. This may affect the diagnostic behaviour of general practitioners (GPs). Aim of our study was to describe GPs’ diagnostic behaviour when suspecting LB. Methods In this descriptive study from January 2010 to June 2015, we used the anonymized electronic medical records of 56,996 patients registered in 12 general practices in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The target population was identified by means of an extensive search strategy, based on International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-1) codes, free text and diagnostic test codes. All contacts related to LB were included in the analysis. Results 2311 patients were included, accounting for 3861 LB contacts and 2619 LB episodes. The distribution of LB contacts showed annual peaks during spring and summer. Serological testing was performed in 36.4% of LB episodes and was mostly requested in patients presenting with general symptoms (71.4%). Unnecessary testing often occurred and only 5.9% of the tests turned out to be positive by immunoblot. From January 2010 to June 2015, no significant differences were found in the number of requested serological tests. The level of serological testing during LB episodes differed significantly between the general practices (19.2% to 75.8%). Conclusions Contrary to clinical guidelines, GPs regularly requested serology even when there was a low suspicion of LB. The development of an easy-to-use diagnostic algorithm may decrease overuse of diagnostic tests and thereby reduce overtreatment of LB.

Objective: For general practitioners (GPs) dizziness is a challenging condition to deal with. Data on the management of dizziness in older patients are mostly lacking. Furthermore, it is unknown whether GPs attempt to decrease Fall Risk Increasing Drugs (FRIDs) use in the management of dizziness in older patients. The aim of this study is to gain more insight into GP’s management of dizziness in older patients, including FRID evaluation and adjustment. Design: Data were derived from electronic medical records, obtained over a 12-month period in 2013. Setting: Forty-six Dutch general practices. Patients: The study sample comprised of 2812 older dizzy patients of 65 years and over. Patients were identified using International Classification of Primary Care codes and free text. Main outcome measures: Usual care was categorized into wait-and-see strategy (no treatment initiated); education and advice; additional testing; medication adjustment; and referral. Results: Frequently applied treatments included a wait-and-see strategy (28.4%) and education and advice (28.0%). Additional testing was performed in 26.8%; 19.0% of the patients were referred. Of the patients 87.2% had at least one FRID prescription. During the observation period, GPs adjusted the use of one or more FRIDs for 11.7% of the patients. Conclusion: This study revealed a wide variety in management strategies for dizziness in older adults. The referral rate for dizziness was high compared to prior research. Although many older dizzy patients use at least one FRID, FRID evaluation and adjustment is scarce. We expect that more FRID adjustments may reduce dizziness and dizziness-related impairment. Key Points It is important to know how general practitioners manage dizziness in older patients in order to assess potential cues for improvement. This study revealed a wide variety in management strategies for dizziness in older patients. There was a scarcity in Fall Risk Increasing Drug (FRID) evaluation and adjustment. The referral rate for dizziness was high compared with previous research.