Search

Background: Many countries observed a sharp decline in the use of general practice services after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, research has not yet considered how changes in healthcare consumption varied among regions with the same restrictive measures but different COVID-19 prevalence. Aim: To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affected healthcare consumption in Dutch general practice during 2020 and 2021, among regions with known heterogeneity in COVID-19 prevalence, from a pre-pandemic baseline in 2019. Design & setting: Population-based cohort study using electronic health records. The study was undertaken in Dutch general practices involved in regional research networks. Method: An interrupted time-series analysis of changes in healthcare consumption from before to during the pandemic was performed. Descriptive statistics were used on the number of potential COVID-19-related contacts, reason for contact, and type of contact. Results: The study covered 3 595 802 contacts (425 639 patients), 3 506 637 contacts (433 340 patients), and 4 105 413 contacts (434 872 patients) in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Time-series analysis revealed a significant decrease in healthcare consumption after the outbreak of the pandemic. Despite interregional heterogeneity in COVID-19 prevalence, healthcare consumption decreased comparably over time in the three regions, before rebounding to a level significantly higher than baseline in 2021. Physical consultations transitioned to phone or digital over time. Conclusion: Healthcare consumption decreased irrespective of the regional prevalence of COVID-19 from the start of the pandemic, with the Delta variant triggering a further decrease. Overall, changes in care consumption appeared to reflect contextual factors and societal restrictions rather than infection rates.

Abstract Background Experiences with organizational changes in daytime general practices and out-of-hours (OOH) services during the COVID-19 pandemic may help to address the challenges in general practice care that were already a concern before the crisis. This study aimed to describe these experiences and the potential usefulness of the organizational changes for future general practice care and any future pandemics. Methods Semi-structured interviews were performed among 11 directors of OOH services, and 19 (locum) general practitioners (GPs) or practice managers, who were purposively sampled. Video or telephone interviews were performed in two rounds: between November 2020 and January 2021 and between May 2021 and August 2021. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis methods. Results Three themes emerged from the data: (1) Changes in the triage procedures; in GP practices and OOH services, stricter triage criteria were implemented, and GPs were more actively involved in the triage process. These measures helped to reduce the number of ‘low urgency’ face-to-face consultations. (2) Changes in GP care; there was a shift towards video and telephone consultations, allowing GPs to spend more time with patients during the remaining face-to-face consultations. For chronic patients, the shift towards telemonitoring appeared to encourage self-care, and postponing face-to-face consultations for regular checkups appeared to be unproblematic for stable patients. (3) Coordination of GP care and information communication flow during the COVID-19 pandemic; OOH directors perceived a lack of consistency in the information from various governmental and non-governmental parties on containment measures and guidelines related to COVID-19, making it difficult to act on them. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified collaboration between GPs, OOH services, and other healthcare professionals. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that some of the organizational changes, such as stricter triage, remote consultations, and changes in managed care of chronic patients, may help in tackling the pre-existing challenges in GP care from before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, more extensive research and continuous monitoring are necessary to establish the effects on patients and their health outcomes. To navigate future pandemics, the intensified collaboration between health professionals should be maintained, while there is considerable room for improvement in the provision of unambiguous information.

Abstract The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on general practitioners’ (GP) care for patients with asthma and/or COPD is largely unknown. To describe the impact of the pandemic on asthma or COPD-related GP care, we analysed routinely recorded electronic health records data from Dutch general practices and out-of-hours (OOH) services. During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), the contact rates for asthma and/or COPD were significantly lower in GP practices and OOH services compared with the pre-pandemic period (2019) (respectively, 15% lower and 28% lower). The proportion of telephone contacts increased significantly with 13%-point in GP practices and 12%-point at OOH services, while the proportion of face-to-face contacts decreased. Furthermore, the proportion of high urgent contacts with OOH services decreased by 8.5%-point. To conclude, the overall contact rates in GP practices and OOH services decreased, while more contacts were remote. Lower contact rates have, after a short follow-up, not resulted in more patients with exacerbations in OOH care. However, this might still be expected after a longer follow-up.

BackgroundNatural language processing (NLP) models such as bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) hold promise in revolutionizing disease identification from electronic health records (EHRs) by potentially enhancing efficiency and accuracy. However, their practical application in practice settings demands a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to development and validation. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges in disease identification due to limited testing availability and challenges in handling unstructured data. In the Netherlands, where general practitioners (GPs) serve as the first point of contact for health care, EHRs generated by these primary care providers contain a wealth of potentially valuable information. Nonetheless, the unstructured nature of free-text entries in EHRs poses challenges in identifying trends, detecting disease outbreaks, or accurately pinpointing COVID-19 cases. ObjectiveThis study aims to develop and validate a BERT model for detecting COVID-19 consultations in general practice EHRs in the Netherlands. MethodsThe BERT model was initially pretrained on Dutch language data and fine-tuned using a comprehensive EHR data set comprising confirmed COVID-19 GP consultations and non–COVID-19–related consultations. The data set was partitioned into a training and development set, and the model’s performance was evaluated on an independent test set that served as the primary measure of its effectiveness in COVID-19 detection. To validate the final model, its performance was assessed through 3 approaches. First, external validation was applied on an EHR data set from a different geographic region in the Netherlands. Second, validation was conducted using results of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test data obtained from municipal health services. Lastly, correlation between predicted outcomes and COVID-19–related hospitalizations in the Netherlands was assessed, encompassing the period around the outbreak of the pandemic in the Netherlands, that is, the period before widespread testing. ResultsThe model development used 300,359 GP consultations. We developed a highly accurate model for COVID-19 consultations (accuracy 0.97, F1-score 0.90, precision 0.85, recall 0.85, specificity 0.99). External validations showed comparable high performance. Validation on PCR test data showed high recall but low precision and specificity. Validation using hospital data showed significant correlation between COVID-19 predictions of the model and COVID-19–related hospitalizations (F1-score 96.8; P

Background: Changes in primary care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic could have affected patient experience of primary care both positively and negatively. Aim: To assess the experiences of patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design & setting: A qualitative study of patients from regions with high and low COVID-19 prevalence in the Netherlands. Method: A qualitative study using a phenomenological framework was performed among purposively sampled patients. Individual semi-structured interviews were performed and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed by means of an inductive approach. Results: Twenty-eight patients were interviewed (13 men and 15 women, aged 27–91 years). After thematic analysis, two main themes emerged: accessibility and continuity of primary care. Changes considered positive during the pandemic regarding accessibility and continuity of primary care included having a quieter practice, having more time for consultations, and the use of remote care for problems with low complexity. However, patients also experienced decreases in both care accessibility and continuity, such as feeling unwelcome, the GP postponing chronic care, seeing unfamiliar doctors, and care being segregated. Conclusion: Despite bringing several benefits, patients indicated that the changes to primary care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic could have threatened care accessibility and continuity, which are core values of primary care. These insights can guide primary care provision not only in this and future pandemics, but also when implementing permanent changes to care provision in primary care.

Abstract Background Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women’s experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women’s experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia. Methods The Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5 years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor. Results In total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC. Conclusion This study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC.

Abstract Background The levels of frailty are anticipated to increase as a result of population aging. A valid instrument is required to detect individuals at high risk of frailty. The present research aimed to assess feasibility, reliability, and construct validity of the Arabic version of Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) in urban and rural populations in South Lebanon. Methods During 2015, a cross-sectional study, which enrolled 390 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and above, was conducted in urban and rural areas in Nabatieh in South Lebanon. The survey included questions on sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, GFI, and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). The translation and cultural adaptation of the GFI followed a standardized protocol. After that, the psychometric properties of the scale (i.e., feasibility, reliability, and validity) were evaluated. Results A total of 390 elderly filled out the questionnaire, of whom 51% were women and 70% lived in rural areas. 81.3% of elderly were identified as frail. The internal consistency of the GFI scale was high for all subscales (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70), except the social scale (0.56). The GFI yielded statistically significant scores for subgroup analysis (known-groups validity) as higher levels of frailty were seen in older people, women, those with morbidities, and those reported poor financial status. The construct validity of the scale was supported by the significant correlation with the VES-13 (r = 0.73; p = 0.001), quality of life (r = − 0.22; p = 0.001), and self-reported health status (r = − 0.66; p = 0.001). Conclusion This study supports the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the GFI Arabic version as a screening tool for frailty among community-dwelling elderly in South Lebanon.

Objectives We compared intrapartum interventions and outcomes for mothers, neonates and children up to 16 years, for induction of labour (IOL) versus spontaneous labour onset in uncomplicated term pregnancies with live births.Design We used population linked data from New South Wales, Australia (2001–2016) for healthy women giving birth at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed for intrapartum interventions, postnatal maternal and neonatal outcomes, and long-term child outcomes adjusted for maternal age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, parity and gestational age.Results Of 474 652 included births, 69 397 (15%) had an IOL for non-medical reasons. Primiparous women with IOL versus spontaneous onset differed significantly for: spontaneous vaginal birth (42.7% vs 62.3%), instrumental birth (28.0% vs 23.9%%), intrapartum caesarean section (29.3% vs 13.8%), epidural (71.0% vs 41.3%), episiotomy (41.2% vs 30.5%) and postpartum haemorrhage (2.4% vs 1.5%). There was a similar trend in outcomes for multiparous women, except for caesarean section which was lower (5.3% vs 6.2%). For both groups, third and fourth degree perineal tears were lower overall in the IOL group: primiparous women (4.2% vs 4.9%), multiparous women (0.7% vs 1.2%), though overall vaginal repair was higher (89.3% vs 84.3%). Following induction, incidences of neonatal birth trauma, resuscitation and respiratory disorders were higher, as were admissions to hospital for infections (ear, nose, throat, respiratory and sepsis) up to 16 years. There was no difference in hospitalisation for asthma or eczema, or for neonatal death (0.06% vs 0.08%), or in total deaths up to 16 years.Conclusion IOL for non-medical reasons was associated with higher birth interventions, particularly in primiparous women, and more adverse maternal, neonatal and child outcomes for most variables assessed. The size of effect varied by parity and gestational age, making these important considerations when informing women about the risks and benefits of IOL.

To compare mode of birth and medical interventions between broadly equivalent birth settings in England and the Netherlands.Data were combined from the Birthplace study in England (from April 2008 to April 2010) and the National Perinatal Register in the Netherlands (2009). Low risk women in England planning birth at home (16,470) or in freestanding midwifery units (11,133) were compared with Dutch women with planned home births (40,468). Low risk English women with births planned in alongside midwifery units (16,418) or obstetric units (19,096) were compared with Dutch women with planned midwife-led hospital births (37,887).CS rates varied across planned births settings from 6.5% to 15.5% among nulliparous and 0.6% to 5.1% among multiparous women. CS rates were higher among low risk nulliparous and multiparous English women planning obstetric unit births compared to Dutch women planning midwife-led hospital births (adjusted (adj) OR 1.89 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.18) and 3.66 (2.90 to 4.63) respectively). Instrumental vaginal birth rates varied from 10.7% to 22.5% for nulliparous and from 0.9% to 5.7% for multiparous women. Rates were lower in the English comparison groups apart from planned births in obstetric units. Transfer, augmentation and episiotomy rates were much lower in England compared to the Netherlands for all midwife-led groups. In most comparisons, epidural rates were higher among English groups.When considering maternal outcomes, findings confirm advantages of giving birth in midwife-led settings for low risk women. Further research is needed into strategies to decrease rates of medical intervention in obstetric units in England and to reduce rates of avoidable transfer, episiotomy and augmentation of labour in the Netherlands.

Background The quality of registry based studies depends largely on the data accuracy of the registries. The Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined) is a nationwide database comprising perinatal data digitally provided by different healthcare providers. Perined data are used for comparing outcomes across regions and healthcare institutions as well as for quality analyses and research purposes. However, little is known about the data quality of the Perined database. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the quality of Perined data compared to hospital records and case report forms (CRFs) that were part of the IUGR Risk Selection (IRIS) study. Methods In this comparison study data from Perined and the IRIS Study will be used. The IRIS study was a large cluster-randomized trial investigating the effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography in reducing severe adverse perinatal outcomes among Dutch low-risk pregnant women. A subsample of the IRIS study of neonates being at risk of severe adverse perinatal outcomes and their mothers will be used. Baseline demographic data were collected by midwives from participating women at inclusion (around 22 weeks’ gestation) using CRFs, and in-depth neonatal and maternal clinical data were retrieved from hospital records by trained research assistants. These latter IRIS study data were linked and compared to Perined data. Completeness of Perined data will be calculated for every variable. The reliability will be assessed as the percent of agreement between Perined and hospital record data or the CRF-based data. Additionally, intra-class correlation coefficients will be calculated for continuous variables, and Kappa and ‘Prevalence-and-Bias-Adjusted Kappa’ will be calculated for categorical variables. Discussion The results of the proposed comparison study will provide users of Perined data insight in its data quality. This will serve as an example of the accuracy of registry based data used in maternal and neonatal care research.