Search

Abstract Background In many countries out-of-hours care faces serious challenges, including shortage of general practitioners, a high workload, reduced motivation to work out of hours, and increased demand for out-of-hours care. One response to these challenges is the introduction of nurse practitioner as doctor substitutes, in order to maintain the (high) accessibility and safety of out of hours care. Although nurse practitioners have proven to provide equally safe and efficient care during daytime primary care, it is unclear whether substitution is effective and efficient in the more complex out of hours primary care. This study aims to assess the effects of substitution of care from general practitioners to nurse practitioners in an out of hours primary care setting. Design A quasi experimental study is undertaken at one “general practitioner cooperative” to offer out-of-hours care for 304.000 people in the South East of the Netherlands. In the experimental condition patient care is provided by a team of one nurse practitioner and four general practitioners; where the nurse practitioner replaces one general practitioner during one day of the weekend from 10 am to 5 pm. In the control condition patient care is provided by a team of five general practitioners during the other day of the weekend, also from 10 am to 5 pm. The study period last 15 months, from April 2011 till July 2012. Methods Data will be collected on number of different outcomes using a range of methods. Our primary outcome is substitution of care. This is calculated using the number and characteristics of patients that have a consultation at the GP cooperative. We compare the number of patients seen by both professionals, type of complaints, resource utilization (e.g. prescription, tests, investigations, referrals) and waiting times in the experimental condition and control condition. This data is derived from patient electronic medical records. Secondary outcomes are: patient satisfaction; general practitioners workload; quality and safety of care and barriers and facilitators. Discussion The study will provide evidence whether substitution of care in out-of-hours setting is safe and efficient and give insight into barriers and facilitators related to the introduction of nurse practitioners in out-of-hours setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01388374

Abstract Background Patients in hospitals and nursing homes are at risk of the development of, often preventable, adverse events (AEs), which threaten patient safety. Guidelines for prevention of many types of AEs are available, however, compliance with these guidelines appears to be lacking. Besides general barriers that inhibit implementation, this non-compliance is associated with the large number of guidelines competing for attention. As implementation of a guideline is time-consuming, it is difficult for organisations to implement all available guidelines. Another problem is lack of feedback about performance using quality indicators of guideline based care and lack of a recognisable, unambiguous system for implementation. A program that allows organisations to implement multiple guidelines simultaneously may facilitate guideline use and thus improve patient safety. The aim of this study is to develop and test such an integral patient safety program that addresses several AEs simultaneously in hospitals and nursing homes. This paper reports the design of this study. Methods and design The patient safety program addresses three AEs: pressure ulcers, falls and urinary tract infections. It consists of bundles and outcome and process indicators based on the existing evidence based guidelines. In addition it includes a multifaceted tailored implementation strategy: education, patient involvement, and a computerized registration and feedback system. The patient safety program was tested in a cluster randomised trial on ten hospital wards and ten nursing home wards. The baseline period was three months followed by the implementation of the patient safety program for fourteen months. Subsequently the follow-up period was nine months. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of AEs on every ward. Secondary outcome measures were the utilization of preventive interventions and the knowledge of nurses regarding the three topics. Randomisation took place on ward level. The results will be analysed separately for hospitals and nursing homes. Discussion Major challenges were the development of the patient safety program including a digital registration and feedback system and the implementation of the patient safety program. Trial registration Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID [NCT00365430]

In trauma care, the patient is the primary focus of attention. However, patients' relatives also need attention, for two main reasons. First, the support of relatives is an important factor in the convalescence of patients. Second, the trauma means a serious disruption of not only the life of patients, but also that of their relatives. The purpose of this study was to explore the needs of relatives of trauma patients, to what extent these needs are met by the support of social workers, and how relatives benefit from this support. The study was conducted in hospitals in The Netherlands. Needs were measured using the Dutch version of the Critical Care Family Needs Inventory. Results of in-depth interviews were used to develop a questionnaire to explore the type of social worker support and to what extent relatives benefit from this support. Findings show that trauma patients' relatives have a need for information, access to the patient and hospital staff, and psychosocial assistance. In most cases social workers supported relatives and relatives benefited from the support. To ensure that trauma patients' relatives receive the support they need, social workers should be involved in trauma care as the standard of good care.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Rapid response systems (RRSs) are recommended by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and implemented worldwide. Our study on the effects of an RRS showed a non-significant decrease in cardiac arrest and/or unexpected death from 0.5% to 0.25%. Unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions increased significantly from 2.5% to 4.2% without a decrease in APACHE II scores. In this study, we estimated the mean costs of an RRS per patient day and tested the hypothesis that admitting less severely ill patients to the ICU reduces costs., Methods: A cost analysis of an RRS on a surgical ward, including costs for implementation, a 1-day training programme for nurses, nursing time for extra vital signs observation, medical emergency team (MET) consults and differences in unplanned ICU days before and after RRS implementation. To test the hypothesis, we performed a scenario analysis with a mean APACHE II score of 14 points instead of the empirical 17.6 points for the unplanned ICU admissions, including 33% extra MET consults and 22% extra unplanned ICU admissions., Results: Mean RRS costs were €26.87 per patient-day: implementation €0.33 (1%), training €0.90 (3%), nursing time spent on extended observation of vital signs €2.20 (8%), MET consults €0.57 (2%) and increased number of unplanned ICU days after RRS implementation €22.87 (85%). In the scenario analysis mean costs per patient-day were €10.18., Conclusions: The costs for extra unplanned ICU days were relatively high but the remaining RRS costs were relatively low. The 'APACHE II 14' scenario confirmed the hypothesis that costs for the number of unplanned ICU days can be reduced if less severely ill patients are referred to the ICU. Based upon these findings, our hospital stimulates earlier referral to the ICU, although further implementation strategies are needed to achieve these aims., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The aim of a rapid response system (RRS) is to improve the timely recognition and treatment of ward patients with deteriorating vital signs The system is based on a set of clinical criteria that are used to assess patient's vital signs on a general ward. Once a patient is evaluated as critical, a medical emergency team is activated to more thoroughly assess the patient's physical condition and to initiate treatment. The medical emergency team included a critical care physician and a critical care nurse., Aim: To assess the effect of an RRS on health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Methods: Prospective cohort study in surgical patients before and after implementing an RRS. HRQOL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) at pre surgery and at 3 and 6 months following surgery., Results: No statistical significant effects of RRS implementation on the EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS were found. This was also true for the subpopulation of patients with an unplanned intensive care unit admission. Regarding the EQ-5D dimensions, deterioration in the 'mobility' and 'usual activities' dimensions in the post-implementation group was significantly less compared to the pre-implementation group with a respective mean difference of 0.08 (p = 0.03) and 0.09 (p = 0.04) on a three-point scale at 6 months. Lower pre-surgery EQ-5D index and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) scores were significantly associated with lower EQ-5D index scores at 3 and 6 months following surgery., Conclusions: Implementation of an RRS did not convincingly affect HRQOL following major surgery. We question if HRQOL is an adequate measure to assess the influence of an RRS. Pre-surgery HRQOL- and ASA-PS scores were strongly associated with HRQOL outcomes and may have abated the influence of the RRS implementation.

Background: Rapid response systems (RRSs) are considered an important tool for improving patient safety. We studied the effect of an RRS on the incidence of cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths., Methods: Retrospective before- after study in a university medical centre. We included 1376 surgical patients before (period 1) and 2410 patients after introduction of the RRS (period 2). Outcome measures were corrected for the baseline covariates age, gender and ASA., Results: The number of patients who experienced a cardiac arrest and/or who died unexpectedly decreased non significantly from 0.50% (7/1376) in period 1 to 0.25% (6/2410) in period 2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, CI 0.14-1.30). The individual number of cardiac arrests decreased non-significantly from 0.29% (4/1367) to 0.12% (3/2410) (OR 0.38, CI 0.09-1.73) and the number of unexpected deaths decreased non-significantly from 0.36% (5/1376) to 0.17% (4/2410) (OR 0.42, CI 0.11-1.59). In contrast, the number of unplanned ICU admissions increased from 2.47% (34/1376) in period 1 to 4.15% (100/2400) in period 2 (OR 1.66, CI 1.07-2.55). Median APACHE ll score at unplanned ICU admissions was 16 in period 1 versus 16 in period 2 (NS). Adherence to RRS procedures. Observed abnormal early warning scores ≤72 h preceding a cardiac arrest, unexpected death or an unplanned ICU admission increased from 65% (24/37 events) in period 1 to 91% (91/101 events) in period 2 (p < 0.001). Related ward physician interventions increased from 38% (9/24 events) to 89% (81/91 events) (p < 0.001). In period 2, ward physicians activated the medical emergency team in 65% of the events (59/91), although in 16% (15/91 events) activation was delayed for one or two days. The overall medical emergency team dose was 56/1000 admissions., Conclusions: Introduction of an RRS resulted in a 50% reduction in cardiac arrest rates and/or unexpected death. However, this decrease was not statistically significant partly due to the low base-line incidence. Moreover, delayed activation due to the two-tiered medical emergency team activation procedure and suboptimal adherence of the ward staff to the RRS procedures may have further abated the positive results.

In 9 years of surveillance of postoperative lower respiratory infections, the infection rate in patients following regional anesthesia was 0.2% and 0.1% in patients following general anesthesia. No bacterial filters in the breathing circuit were used. Infected patients had risk factors such as type of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists class > or =2, old age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or smoking habits. Infections were not clustered. This suggests that, in our setting, patient factors are most important in the development of postoperative lower respiratory infections and that the role of bacterial filters as a preventive measure is negligible.