Search

Adherence to clinical guidelines requires support in practice. However, systematic implementation of evidence-based guidelines is not common practice in oral healthcare. The Knowledge Institute Oral Care (KiMo) offers the opportunity to take into account potential barriers and facilitators during the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. These factors which are relevant to the guideline and the oral healthcare practice provide the ingredients for a tailor-made programme of implementation that has a scientific basis. Elements of any implementation programme are the quality indicators derived from the oral healthcare guidelines. These indicators should fit, on the one hand, the specific goals of the guidelines (patient safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centred, timeliness, accessibility) and, onthe other hand, the various perspectives of the different stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, health insurers and inspectorate. These quality indicators provide information on adherence to the guidelines, the results of a certain treatment and the success of the implementation strategy, all with the aim to improve the quality of oral healthcare.

Aims: To measure adherence to recently developed diabetes guidelines at Dutch hospital outpatient clinics and distinguish determinants for variations in care on hospital, internist and patient levels., Methods: Thirteen general hospitals with 58 internists recruited 1950 diabetic patients. Data were extracted from medical files (n = 1915) and from patient questionnaires (n = 1465). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to explain differences in adherence rates to the guidelines., Results: Adherence to process measures was high, except for the examination of feet, calculation of the body mass index and patient education activities (the mean of 12 process measures was 64%). Adherence to intermediate outcome indicators was moderate. The mean percentage of patients with HbA(1c) < 7.0% was 23%. Adherence variation on a hospital level was very small (0.6-7.9%), on an internist level moderate (0.4-18.8%) and on a patient level high (74.4-98.8%). Adherence to all process measures and most of the intermediate outcome indicators was highest in the patients seen by a diabetes specialist nurse., Discussion: More focus on patient involvement in diabetic care and the contribution of diabetes specialist nurses may be important factors in improving the quality of diabetes care.

Quality indicators have been developed throughout Europe primarily for use in hospitals, but also increasingly for primary care. Both development and application are important but there has been less research on the application of indicators. Three issues are important when developing or applying indicators: (1). which stakeholder perspective(s) are the indicators intended to reflect; (2). what aspects of health care are being measured; and (3). what evidence is available? The information required to develop quality indicators can be derived using systematic or non-systematic methods. Non-systematic methods such as case studies play an important role but they do not tap in to available evidence. Systematic methods can be based directly on scientific evidence by combining available evidence with expert opinion, or they can be based on clinical guidelines. While it may never be possible to produce an error free measure of quality, measures should adhere, as far as possible, to some fundamental a priori characteristics (acceptability, feasibility, reliability, sensitivity to change, and validity). Adherence to these characteristics will help maximise the effectiveness of quality indicators in quality improvement strategies. It is also necessary to consider what the results of applying indicators tell us about quality of care.

Background: There is still only limited understanding of whether and why interventions to facilitate the implementation of guidelines for improving primary care are successful. It is therefore important to look inside the 'black box' of the intervention, to ascertain which elements work well or less well., Aim: To assess the associations of key elements of a nationwide multifaceted prevention programme with the successful implementation of cervical screening guidelines in general practice., Design of Study: A nationwide prospective cohort study., Setting: A random sample of one-third of all 4,758 general practices in The Netherlands (n = 1,586)., Method: General practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands were exposed to a two-and-a-half-year nationwide multifaceted prevention programme to improve the adherence to national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. Adherence to guidelines at baseline and after the intervention and actual exposure to programme elements were assessed in the sample using self-administered questionnaires., Results: Both baseline and post-measurement questionnaires were returned by 988 practices (response rate = 62%). No major differences in baseline practice characteristics between study population, non-responders, and all Netherlands practices were observed. After the intervention all practices improved markedly (P<0.001) in their incorporation of nine out of 10 guideline indicators for effective cervical screening into practice. The most important elements for successful implementation were: specific software modules (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervalsfor all nine indicators ranged from OR = 1.85 [95% CI = 1.24-2.77] to OR = 10.2 [95% CI = 7.58-14.1]); two or more 'practice visits' by outreach visitors (ORs and 95% CIs for six indicators ranged from OR = 1.46 [95% CI= 1.01-2.12] to OR = 2.35 [95% CI = 1.63-3.38]); and an educational programme for practice assistants (ORs and 95% CIs for four indicators ranged from OR = 1.57 [95% CI = 1.00-1.92] to OR = 1.90 [95% CI = 1.25-2.88])., Conclusion: A multifaceted programme targeting GPs, including facilitating software modules, outreach visits, and educational sessions for PAs, contributes to the successful implementation of national guidelines for cervical screening.

Background: Although guidelines for the management of low back pain have been published in the past decade, there is potential for further improvement in back pain care., Aim: To document the management of non-specific low back pain by general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands, to determine how this management of care is related to patient and physician factors, and to explore possible reasons for not adhering to the guidelines., Method: A prospective study was set up in which 57 GPs in 30 general practices completed a computerised questionnaire after each consultation for low back pain during a four-month period., Results: Of 1640 back pain contacts, 1180 referred to non-specific low back pain. Diagnostic tests were ordered in 2% of first consultations and in 7% of follow-up consultations within one episode. The advice to stay active despite pain was given in 76% and 69% of these cases respectively. Patients were prescribed an analgesic in 53% and 41% of cases respectively (mainly NSAIDs [80%]). Patients were referred to a physiotherapist in 22% of first and in 50% of follow-up consultations. Older patients were physically examined less often, prescribed analgesics more often, and were told less often that staying active could benefit them. The advice to remain active was omitted more often when symptoms lasted longer. Only a small part of the variance in management was accounted for by patient characteristics or by differences between practices., Conclusion: The management of low back pain met the guidelines to a large extent. Management decisions were often related to characteristics in which the guidelines lack differentiation. Important reasons for non-adherence were perceived patients' preferences. Further implementation of guidelines will be difficult unless doctors' and patients' views are more explicitly known.

Background: Well-organized cervical screening has been shown to be effective in the reduction of both morbidity and mortality from cancer of the uterine cervix. In The Netherlands, the GP plays an important role in the cervical screening. The question is whether the general practices are able to organize an effective cervical cancer screening., Objectives: We explored the extent to which Dutch general practices adhere to organizational guidelines for effective population-based prevention of cervical cancer and which practice characteristics are important for this adherence., Methods: A postal survey was conducted in a random sample of one-third of all 4758 Dutch general practices. Two sets of information were collected: practice characteristics and adherence to four organizational guidelines for effective cervical screening concerning inviting the women, monitoring attendance and sending reminders, organizing the taking of the smear and follow-up monitoring., Results: A total of 1251 (79%) general practices returned a questionnaire; 90 questionnaires were excluded from analyses owing to missing data. The 1161 practices were representative of the Netherlands. A minority of the practices adhered to the four guidelines (in total, ten recommendations). The presence of the practice characteristics 'a general practice-based inviting system', 'a high delegation index' (delegating many tasks to the assistants) and a 'computerized patient information recording system' were positively associated with the adherence to most of the guidelines., Conclusion: This study showed that most of the Dutch general practices are not yet ready to organize an effective cervical cancer screening system. A general practice-based inviting system, a high delegation index and a computerized patient information recording system proved to be important for the adherence to the guidelines. In order to organize a cervical screening programme to achieve optimal effectiveness, emphasis should be placed on the adherence to the four guidelines described in this study and on stimulating a general practice-based inviting system, delegation to the practice assistant and computerization.