Search

This work aims to understand intra- and interprofessional networks of general practitioners (GPs) and ear, nose, and throat specialists (ENT specialists), and in what manner supervisors in these specialties involve interns in their professional network to help them learn intra- and interprofessional collaboration. An egocentric social network approach was used to collect and analyze quantitative as well as qualitative data. For this, semi-structured interviews were held with ten GP and ten ENT specialists. GPs had significantly more interprofessional contacts than ENT specialists ( p < .01), with no significant difference in the network sizes of both professions ( p = .37). All supervisors involved interns in their (ego)network actively as well as more passively. They actively discussed how collaboration with other professionals evolved, or passively assumed that an intern would learn from observing the supervisors' network interactions. Many supervisors considered the interns' initiative essential in deciding to involve an intern in their network. Although the workplace of GPs differed notably from hospital settings where ENT specialists work, the network sizes of both were comparable. Clerkships at the general practice seemed to provide more opportunities to learn interprofessional collaboration, for example with the medical nurse. Supervisors in both specialties could involve interns more actively in their intra- and interprofessional network while interns could take more initiative to learn collaboration from their supervisors' network.

Background and Objectives: For Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) learning journal clubs are recommended, but these are not common practice. How participants discuss and learn about applying evidence in other group meetings is unknown. We examined different types of group meetings and explored the use of, and discussions about, clinical research evidence., Methods: A mixed-methods study design was adopted. After distribution and analysis of a questionnaire about types of group meetings, interviews were conducted to better understand the most frequently occurring type., Results: GPs have different types of meetings, but the most common group meetings where evidence wass discussed were so called quality circles, i.e. pharmacotherapy audit meetings in which GPs discuss drug prescription figures or preferred treatment together with pharmacists. Interviews showed that the source of evidence used mostly are the recommendations in the national GP guidelines. The underlying evidence or new research did not play an important role in the discussions., Conclusions: Quality circles seem to be more goal-oriented than learning oriented. Learning discussions about controversies in clinical research or about the integration of evidence, patient values and clinical expertise occurred infrequently. To harvest the potential value of group meetings for EBM learning, quality circles in their present design are not optimal.

Background: During postgraduate training, general practitioners and other specialists must learn how to deliver shared care to patients; however, the development of formal intraprofessional education is often hampered by curricular constraints. Delivering shared care in everyday work provides trainees with opportunities for informal learning from, about and with one another., Methods: Twelve semi-structured interviews were undertaken with trainee general practitioners and specialists (internal medicine or surgery). A thematic analysis of the input was undertaken and a qualitative description developed., Results: Trainees from different disciplines frequently interact, often by telephone, but generally they learn in a reactive manner. All trainees are highly motivated by the desire to provide good patient care. Specialist trainees learn about the importance of understanding the background of the patient from GPs, while GP trainees gain medical knowledge from the interaction. Trainees from different disciplines are not very motivated to build relationships with each other and have fewer opportunities to do so. Supervisors can play an important role in providing intraprofessional learning opportunities for trainees., Conclusions: During postgraduate training, opportunities for intraprofessional learning occur, but there is much room for improvement. For example, supervisors could increase the involvement of trainees in collaborative tasks and create more awareness of informal learning opportunities. This could assist trainees to learn collaborative skills that will enhance patient care.

The diagnosis of and therapy for ADHD is complex and should be done by experts in this field. In the Netherlands, a new guideline on ADHD for general practitioners has recently been issued. Although there is some room for general practitioners to start medication for this disorder, the main message is to exercise caution in starting medication in general practice. Many children with ADHD have psychiatric comorbidity and proper diagnosis by a specialist is recommended. The main task of the general practitioner is making the right choice concerning when to refer for further diagnosis. Children sometimes show behaviour which, although it is not always what adults want, does not necessarily require psychiatric intervention and this is what a general practitioner can determine.

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is among the most common paediatric conditions managed in primary care. Most recent estimates of the cost of AOM date from a decade ago and lack a full societal perspective. We therefore explored the societal cost of childhood AOM in the Netherlands within the setting of a trial comparing the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at educating general practitioners (GPs) about pain management in AOM compared to usual care.Methods: Economic analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted between February 2015 and May 2018 in 37 practices (94 GPs). In total, 224 children with AOM were included of which 223 (99%) completed the trial (intervention: n = 94; control: n = 129). The cost of AOM due to health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity losses by parent caregivers were retrieved from study diaries and primary care electronic health records, during 28-day follow-up. We calculated mean cost (€ and $) per AOM episode per patient with standard deviations (SD, in €) regardless of study group assignment because there was no clinical effect of the trial intervention. In sensitivity analysis, we calculated cost in the intervention and usual care group, after exclusion of extreme outliers.Results: Mean total AOM cost per patient were €565.93 or $638.78 (SD €1071.01); nearly 90% of these costs were due to productivity losses experienced by parents. After exclusion of outliers, AOM cost was €526.70 or $594.50 (SD €987.96) and similar in the intervention and usual care groups: €516.10 or $582.53 (SD €949.69) and €534.55 or $603.36 (SD €920.55) respectively.Conclusions: At €566 or $639 per episode, societal cost of AOM is higher than previously known and mainly driven by productivity losses by children's parents. Considering its high incidence, AOM poses a significant economic burden that extends beyond direct medical costs.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register no. NTR4920: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4920 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To be able to practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) when making decisions for individual patients, it is important to learn how to combine the best available evidence with the patient's preferences and the physician's clinical expertise. In general practice training, these skills can be learned at the workplace using learning conversations: meetings between the supervising general practitioner (GP) and GP trainee to discuss medical practice, selected topics or professional performance. This study aimed to give insight into the perceptions of GP trainees on their EBM learning processes during learning conversations. Methods: We held semi-structured video-stimulated elicitation interviews (n = 22) with GP trainees affiliated to GP training institutes in the Netherlands and Belgium. GP trainees were shown fragments of their learning conversations, enabling reflection during the interview. Taking an inductive approach, interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. Results: GP trainees perceived learning conversations as useful for learning and discussing EBM. Multiple EBM learning activities were identified, such as discussing evidence together, relating evidence to cases in daily practice and discussing the supervisor's experience and the specific local context in the light of what the evidence recommends. However, for learning to occur, trainees need and expect specific behaviour, both from their supervisors and themselves. Supervisors should supply well-substantiated answers that are applicable in practice and give the trainee confirmation. In turn, the trainee needs to prepare well in order to ask focused, in-depth questions. A safe space allowing equal and open discussion between trainee and supervisor is perceived as an essential context for optimal EBM learning. Conclusions: Our findings show that trainees find learning conversations useful for EBM learning in general practice. To bring EBM learning to its full potential, attention should be paid to optimising the behavioural and contextual factors found relevant to enhancing EBM learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinician-scientists (CSs) are physicians who work in daily care and have an academic role in research or education. They may act as knowledge brokers and help to connect research and clinical practice. There is no data available on CSs' brokering activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to optimising their role in general practice (GP) and elderly care medicine (EM). Aim: To identify the brokering activities of CSs in these fields and the barriers and facilitators they come across whilst sharing knowledge and connecting people in research and frontline health care. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among 17 Dutch senior CSs. Method: Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic interpretative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: CSs facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They exchange knowledge on both sides, make use of extensive networks and constantly and actively involve care in research and research in care. CSs come across barriers as well as facilitators that influence their brokering activities. Some barriers and facilitators are at the individual level, other are related more to the job context and workplace. Conclusions: This study reveals barriers to overcome and facilitators to develop related to the brokering role of CSs. To make the best use of CSs, brokering activities and the added value of CSs should be recognised and supported. Awareness of what CSs need to function effectively in demanding work settings could be important for the future impact of the role on the fields of GP and EM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For unclarified reasons, parents tend to be cautious about administering analgesics to their children, potentially leading to suboptimal management of AOM symptoms. We aim to understand parents' views and expectations of pain management in acute otitis media (AOM) in children. Methods: Qualitative study alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial (PIM-POM study) aimed at optimising pain management in childhood AOM. We purposefully sampled 14 parents of children diagnosed with AOM by their GP, who were recruited to the trial between November 2017 and May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were held at home in the first two weeks after trial enrollment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. Results: Parents experienced difficulties in recognising earache and other symptoms of an ear infection. They consulted the GP for a diagnosis, for reassurance and for management advice. Parents shared that, prior to consultation, they had insufficient knowledge of the benefits of correctly dosed pain medication at regularly scheduled intervals. Parents valued the GP's advice on pain management, and were happy to accept pain medication as standalone therapy, provided that the GP explained why antibiotics would not be needed. Parents' views and expectations of pain management in AOM were shaped by previous experiences of AOM within their family; those with a positive experience of pain medication are more likely to use it in subsequent AOM episodes. Conclusions: Parents of children with AOM consult the GP to help cope with uncertainties in recognising symptoms of AOM, and to receive management advice. It is important that GPs are aware of parents' lack of understanding of the role of pain medication in managing AOM, and that they address this during the consultation. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, identifier NTR4920 (registration date: 19 December 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: To compare quality of care provided by nurse practitioners (NP) with care provided by general practitioners (GP) for children with respiratory tract infections (RTI) in the Netherlands. Background: Nurse practitioners increasingly manage acute conditions in general practice, with opportunities for more protocolled care. Studies on quality of NPs’ care for children with RTIs are limited to the US healthcare system and do not take into account baseline differences in illness severity. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study. Methods: Data were extracted from electronic healthcare records of children 0–6 years presenting with RTI between January–December 2013. Primary outcomes were antibiotic prescriptions and early return visits. Generalized estimating equations were used to correct for potential confounders. Results: A total of 899 RTI consultations were assessed (168 seen by NP; 731 by GP). Baseline characteristics differed between these groups. Overall antibiotic prescription and early return visit rates were 21% and 24%, respectively. Adjusted odds ratio for antibiotic prescription after NP vs. GP delivered care was 1.40 (95% confidence interval 0.89–2.22) and for early return visits 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.01–2.31). Important confounder for antibiotic prescription was illness severity. Presence of wheezing was a confounder for return visits. Complication and referral rates did not differ. Conclusion: Antibiotic prescription, complication and referral rates for paediatric RTI consultations did not differ significantly between NP and GP consultations, after correction for potential confounders. General practitioners, however, see more severely ill children and have a lower return visit rate. A randomised controlled study is needed to determine whether NP care quality is truly noninferior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Changes in healthcare practice toward more proactive clinical, organizational and interprofessional working require primary healthcare professionals to learn continuously from each other through collaboration. This systematic review uses realist methodology to consolidate knowledge on the characteristics of workplace learning (WPL) through collaboration by primary healthcare professionals.Methods: Following several scoping searches, five electronic bibliographic databases were searched from January 1990 to December 2015 for relevant gray and published literature written in English, French, German and Dutch. Reviewers worked in pairs to identify relevant articles. A set of statements, based on the findings of our scoping searches, was used as a coding tree to analyze the papers. Interpretation of the results was done in alternating pairs, discussed within the author group and triangulated with stakeholders’ views.Results: Out of 6930 references, we included 42 publications that elucidated who, when, how and what primary healthcare professionals learn through collaboration. Papers were both qualitative and quantitative in design, and focused largely on WPL of collaborating general practitioners and nurses. No striking differences between different professionals within primary healthcare were noted. Professionals were often unaware of the learning that occurs through collaboration. WPL happened predominantly through informal discussions about patient cases and modeling for other professionals. Any professionals could both learn and facilitate others’ learning. Outcomes were diverse, but contextualized knowledge seemed to be important.Discussion/conclusions: Primary care professionals’ WPL is multifaceted. Existing social constructivist and social cognitivist learning theories form a framework from which to interpret these findings. Primary care policy makers and managers should ensure that professionals have access to protected time, earmarked for learning. Time is required for reflection, to learn new ways of interaction and to develop new habits within clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: (a) To establish whether disease-related, child-related, and physician-related factors are independently associated with specialist referral in young children with recurrent RTI, and (b) to evaluate whether general practitioners (GPs) follow current guidelines regarding these referrals. Methods: Electronic GP records of children under 24month of age, born 2002–2008, were reviewed for RTI episodes using ICPC codes. Child-related factors were extracted from the prospective WHISTLER birth-cohort in which a considerable part of children had been enrolled. To evaluate guideline adherence, referral data were compared to national guideline recommendations. Results: Consultations for 2532 RTI episodes (1041 children) were assessed. Seventy-eight children were referred for recurrent RTI (3.1% of RTI episodes; 7.5% of children). Disease factors were the main determinants of referral: number (OR 1.7 [CI 1.7–1.7]) and severity of previous RTI episodes (OR 2.2 [CI 1.6–2.8]), and duration of RTI episode (OR 1.7 [CI 1.7–1.8]). The non-disease factors daycare attendance (OR 1.3 [CI 1.0–1.7]) and 5–10 years working experience as a GP compared with <5 years (OR 0.37 [CI 0.27–0.50]) were also associated. Fifty-seven percent of referrals for recurrent RTI were made in accordance with national guidelines. Conclusions: Referral of children for recurrent RTI was primarily determined by frequency, severity, and duration of RTIs; the influence of non-disease factors was limited. Just over half of referrals were made in accordance with guidelines. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]