Search

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are a major health problem resulting in negative effects on wellbeing and substantial costs to society. Work participation is associated with positive benefits for both mental and physical health. Potentially, generalist physical therapists (GPTs) can play an important role in reducing absenteeism, presenteeism and associated costs in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. However, work participation is often insufficiently addressed within generalist physical therapy practice (GPTP). Therefore, this study evaluates whether GPTs take work participation into account as a determining factor in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, and how this might be improved., Methods: This qualitative study consisted of seven focus groups involving 30 participants: 21 GPTs and 9 occupational physical therapists (OPTs). Based on an interview guide, participants were asked how they integrate work participation within their practice, how they collaborate with other professionals, and how GPTs can improve integration of the patient's work within their practice., Results: Although participants recognized the importance of work participation, they mentioned that the integration of this item in their GPTP could be improved. Generally, GPTs place insufficient priority on work participation. Moreover, there is a lack of cooperation between the generalist physical therapist and (other) occupational healthcare providers (including OPTs), and the borderlines/differences between generalist physcial therapy and occupational health physcial therapy were sometimes unclear. GPTs showed a lack of knowledge and a need for additional information about several important work-related factors (e.g. work content, physical and psychosocial working conditions, terms of employment)., Conclusions: Although a patient's work is important, GPTs take insufficient account of work participation as a determining factor in the treatment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders. GPTs often lack specific knowledge about work-related factors, and there is insufficient cooperation between OPTs and other occupational healthcare providers. The integration of work participation within GPTP, and the cooperation between GPTs and other occupational healthcare providers, show room for improvement.

Background: This study aimed to document the variation in technical efficiency of primary care (PC) practices in delivering evidence-based cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and to identify associated factors., Methods: This observational study was based on the follow-up measurements in a cluster randomized trial. Patients were recruited from 41 general practices in the Netherlands, involving 106 GPs and 1671 patients. Data on clinical performance were collected from patient records. The analysis focused on PC practices and used a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Bias-corrected DEA technical efficiency scores for each PC practice were generated, followed by regression analysis with practice efficiency as outcomes and organizational features of general practice as predictors., Results: Not all PC practices delivered recommended CVRM with the same technical efficiency; a significant difference from the efficient frontier was found (p < .000; 95 % CI 1.018-1.041). The variation in technical efficiency between PC practices was associated with training practice status (p = .026). Whether CVRM clinical tasks were performed by a practice nurse or a GP did not influence technical efficiency in a statistical significant way neither did practice size., Conclusions: Technical efficiency in delivering evidence-based CVRM increased with having a training practice status. Nurse involvement and practice size showed no statistical impact.

Background: Practice accreditation is a widely used method to assess and improve the quality of healthcare services. In the Netherlands, a practice accreditation program was implemented in primary medical care. We aimed to identify determinants of impact of a practice accreditation program, building on the experiences of primary care professionals who had participated in this program., Methods: An interview study was done to document the experiences of 33 participating primary care professionals and used to identify determinants of outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as framework for the qualitative analysis., Results: After analyzing 23 interviews saturation was reached. The practice accreditation program is based on structured quality improvement, but only some of its elements were identified as determinants of impact. Factors that were perceived to facilitate implementation of the program were: designating one person responsible for the program, ensuring clear lines of communication within the whole practice team and having affinity with or stimulate enthusiasm for improving quality of care. Contextual factors such as participation in a care group and being connected to the GP educational institute were important for actual change. The accreditation program was perceived to have positive effects on team climate and commitment to quality of care in the practice team. The perception was that patient care was not directly influenced by the accreditation program. Receiving a certificate for completing the accreditation program seemed to have little added value to participants., Conclusions: Practice accreditation may have positive outcomes on quality of care, but not all planned elements may contribute to its outcomes. Both factors in the accreditation process and in the context were perceived as determinants of quality improvement. The challenge is to build on facilitating factors, while reducing the elements of accreditation that do not contribute to its impact.

Background: Accreditation of healthcare organizations is a widely used method to assess and improve quality of healthcare. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of improvement plans in practice accreditation of primary care practices, focusing on cardiovascular risk management (CVRM)., Method: A two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial with a block design was conducted with measurements at baseline and follow-up. Primary care practices allocated to the intervention group (n = 22) were instructed to focus improvement plans during the intervention period on CVRM, while practices in the control group (n = 23) could focus on any domain except on CVRM and diabetes mellitus. Primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, LDL cholesterol <2.5 mmol/l and prescription of antiplatelet drugs. Secondary outcomes were 17 indicators of CVRM and physician's perceived goal attainment for the chosen improvement project., Results: No effect was found on the primary outcomes. Blood pressure targets were reached in 39.8% of patients in the intervention and 38.7% of patients in the control group; cholesterol target levels were reached in 44.5% and 49.0% respectively; antiplatelet drugs were prescribed in 82.7% in both groups. Six secondary outcomes improved: smoking status, exercise control, diet control, registration of alcohol intake, measurement of waist circumference, and fasting glucose. Participants' perceived goal attainment was high in both arms: mean scores of 7.9 and 8.2 on the 10-point scale., Conclusions: The focus of improvement plans on CVRM in the practice accreditation program led to some improvements of CVRM, but not on the primary outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00791362.

Background: Cardiovascular risk management is largely provided in primary healthcare, but not all patients with established cardiovascular diseases receive preventive treatment as recommended. Accreditation of healthcare organizations has been introduced across the world with a range of aims, including the improvement of clinical processes and outcomes. The Dutch College of General Practitioners has launched a program for accreditation of primary care practices, which focuses on chronic illness care. This study aims to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a practice accreditation program, focusing on patients with established cardiovascular diseases., Methods/design: We have planned a two-arm cluster randomized trial with a block design. Seventy primary care practices will be recruited from those who volunteer to participate in the practice accreditation program. Primary care practices will be the unit of randomization. A computer list of random numbers will be generated by an independent statistician. The intervention group (n = 35 practices) will be instructed to focus improvement on cardiovascular risk management. The control group will be instructed to focus improvement on other domains in the first year of the program. Baseline and follow-up measurements at 12 months after receiving the accreditation certificate are based on a standardized version of the audit in the practice accreditation program. Primary outcomes include controlled blood pressure, serum cholesterol, and prescription of recommended preventive medication. Secondary outcomes are 15 process indicators and two outcome indicators of cardiovascular risk management, self-reported achievement of improvement goals and perceived unintended consequences. The intention to treat analysis is statistically powered to detect a difference of 10% on primary outcomes. The economic evaluation aims to determine the efficiency of the program and investigates the relationship between costs, performance indicators, and accreditation., Discussion: It is important to gain more information about the effectiveness and efficiency of the practice accreditation program to assess if participation is worthwhile regarding the quality of cardiovascular risk management. The results of this study will help to develop the practice accreditation program for primary care practices.

Background: Many patients with cardiovascular disease do not attain the targets for health-related lifestyle and preventive treatment recommended in practice guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of diabetes (DM) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the quality of cardiovascular risk management in patients with established cardiovascular diseases (CVD)., Methods and Results: Patients with established CVD were randomly selected in primary care practices using recorded diagnoses. Structured case forms were used to review data on 20 performance indicators concerning CVD from medical records. Descriptive and multilevel regression analyses were conducted. In 45 primary care practices with 106 physicians in the Netherlands, 1614 medical records of patients with CVD (37.9% women) were reviewed. A total of 1076 (66.7%) patients had recorded CVD only (reference group); 7.8% had CVD and COPD; 22.4% had CVD and DM; 3.1% patients had CVD, COPD and DM. Compared with the reference group, patients with CVD and DM yielded higher scores on 17 of 20 indicators; patients with CVD, DM and COPD on 14 indicators; and patients with CVD and COPD on three indicators. Of the patients with CVD and DM, fewer patients had LDL-cholesterol levels over 2.5 mmol/l (OR=0.36; 95% CI 0.26-0.50), more had antiplatelet drugs prescribed (OR=1.72; 95% CI 1.17-2.54), and more had systolic blood pressure measurement (OR=4.12; 95% CI 2.80-6.06)., Conclusions: This study showed that DM but not COPD was associated with more comprehensive cardiovascular risk management. This finding adds to cumulating evidence that presence of DM is associated with better preventive treatment of cardiovascular risk.

Introduction: Delphi procedures are frequently used to develop performance indicators, but little is known about the validity of this method. We aimed to examine the consistency of indicator selection across different procedures and across different panels., Methods: Analysis of three indicator set development procedures: the EPA Cardio project, which used international GP panels; the UniRap project, a Dutch GP indicator project; and the Vitale Vaten project, which used a national multidisciplinary health professional panel and a stakeholder panel., Results: With respect to clinical indicators, consistency between procedures varied according to the origin of the indicators. In Vitale Vaten the multidisciplinary panel of health professionals validated 63% from the international EPA Cardio indicators again. From the UniRap GP set only 13% was rated valid again. Considering organisational indicators, 27 indicators were rated in both EPA Cardio and Vitale Vaten. In the Vitale Vaten project 17 indicators (63%) were validated, including eight of the nine indicators validated in EPA Cardio. Consistency between panels was moderate, giving a decisive role to the health professional panel, being the most critical., Conclusion: The consistency of selected performance indicators varied across procedures and panels. Further research is needed to identify underlying determinants of this variation.

In the Netherlands, pregnant women at low risk of complications during pregnancy, have the opportunity to choose freely between giving birth at home or in a hospital maternity unit. This study analyses how various attributes of obstetric care, socio-economic characteristics and attitudes influence the decisions that these women make with regard to obstetric care. The method of discrete-choice experiment was applied in the process of data collection and analysis. The data were collected among low-risk nulliparous pregnant women. The analysis suggests that there are strong preferences among some Dutch women for a home birth. Nevertheless, the absence of a medical pain-relief treatment during home birth, might provide incentives for some women to opt for a birth in a hospital, especially at the end of their pregnancy. If the attractiveness of home birth should be preserved in the Netherlands, specific attention should be paid on the approach to pain during a home birth. Efforts could also be made in offering a domestic atmosphere during hospital births to improve hospital-based obstetric care in view of women's preferences.