Comparative Performance Information Plays No Role in the Referral Behaviour of GPs

Comparative performance information (CPI) about the quality of hospital care is information used to identify high-quality hospitals and providers. As the gatekeeper to secondary care, the general practitioner (GP) can use CPI to reflect on the pros and cons of the available options with the patient and choose a provider best fitted to the patient’s needs. We investigated how GPs view their role in using CPI to choose providers and support patients. Method: We used a mixed-method, sequential, exploratory design to conduct explorative interviews with 15 GPs about their referral routines, methods of referral consideration, patient involvement, and the role of CPI. Then we quantified the qualitative results by sending a survey questionnaire to 81 GPs affiliated with a representative national research network. Results: Seventy GPs (86% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most GPs did not know where to find CPI (87%) and had never searched for it (94%). The GPs reported that they were not motivated to use CPI due to doubts about its role as support information, uncertainty about the effect of using CPI, lack of faith in better outcomes, and uncertainty about CPI content and validity. Nonetheless, most GPs believed that patients would like to be informed about quality-of- care differences (62%), and about half the GPs discussed quality-of-care differences with their patients (46%), though these discussions were not based on CPI. Conclusion: Decisions about referrals to hospital care are not based on CPI exchanges during GP consultations. As a gatekeeper, the GP is in a good position to guide patients through the enormous amount of quality information that is available. Nevertheless, it is unclear how and whether the GP’s role in using information about quality of care in the referral process can grow, as patients hardly ever initiate a discussion based on CPI, though they seem to be increasingly more critical about differences in quality of care. Future research should address the conditions needed to support GPs’ ability and willingness to use CPI to guide their patients in the referral process

COPD exacerbations in general practice: variability in oral prednisolone courses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of oral corticosteroids as treatment of COPD exacerbations in primary care is well established and evidence-based. However, the most appropriate dosage regimen has not been determined and remains controversial. Corticosteroid therapy is associated with a number of undesirable side effects, including hyperglycaemias, so differences in prescribing might be relevant. This study examines the differences between GPs in dosage and duration of prednisolone treatment in patients with a COPD exacerbation. It also investigates the number of general practitioners (GPs) who adjust their treatment according to the presence of diabetic co-morbidity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study among 219 GPs and 25 GPs in training, located in the Northern part of the Netherlands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The response rate was 69%. Nearly every GP prescribed a continuous dose of prednisolone 30 mg per day. Among GPs there were substantial differences in treatment duration. GPs prescribed courses of five, seven, ten, or fourteen days. A course of seven days was most common. The duration of treatment depended on exacerbation and disease severity. A course of five days was especially prescribed in case of a less severe exacerbation. In a more severe exacerbation duration of seven to fourteen days was more common. Hardly any GP adjusted treatment to the presence of diabetic co-morbidity.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Under normal conditions GPs prescribe prednisolone quite uniformly, within the range of the current Dutch guidelines. There is insufficient guidance regarding how to adjust corticosteroid treatment to exacerbation severity, disease severity and the presence of diabetic co-morbidity. Under these circumstances, there is a substantial variation in treatment duration.</p

Frequent attenders in general practice: problem solving treatment provided by nurses [ISRCTN51021015]

BACKGROUND: There is a need for assistance from primary care mental health workers in general practice in the Netherlands. General practitioners (GPs) experience an overload of frequent attenders suffering from psychological problems. Problem Solving Treatment (PST) is a brief psychological treatment tailored for use in a primary care setting. PST is provided by nurses, and earlier research has shown that it is a treatment at least as effective as usual care. However, research outcomes are not totally satisfying. This protocol describes a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of PST provided by nurses for patients in general practice. The results of this study, which currently being carried out, will be presented as soon as they are available. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol describes the design of a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PST and usual care compared to usual care only. Patients, 18 years and older, who present psychological problems and are frequent attenders in general practice are recruited by the research assistant. The participants receive questionnaires at baseline, after the intervention, and again after 3 months and 9 months. Primary outcome is the reduction of symptoms, and other outcomes measured are improvement in problem solving skills, psychological and physical well being, daily functioning, social support, coping styles, problem evaluation and health care utilization. DISCUSSION: Our results may either confirm that PST in primary care is an effective way of dealing with emotional disorders and a promising addition to the primary care in the UK and USA, or may question this assumption. This trial will allow an evaluation of the effects of PST in practical circumstances and in a rather heterogeneous group of primary care patients. This study delivers scientific support for this use and therefore indications for optimal treatment and referral

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2496">NTR2496</a> (Netherlands National Trial Register, <url>http://www.trialregister.nl</url>).</p

A pilot qualitative study to explore stakeholder opinions regarding prescribing quality indicators

Background: Information on prescribing quality of diabetes care is required by health care providers, insurance companies, policy makers, and the public. Knowledge regarding the opinions and preferences of all involved parties regarding prescribing quality information is important for effective use of prescribing quality indicators. Methods: Between June and December 2009 we conducted semi structured interviews with 16 key-informants representing eight different organizations in the Netherlands involved in healthcare quality measurement and improvement. The interview guide included topics on participants' opinions and preferences regarding existing types of prescribing quality indicators in relation to their aim of using quality information. Content analysis methods were used to process the resulting transcripts following the framework of predetermined themes. Results: Findings from this qualitative study of stakeholder preferences showed that indicators focusing on undertreatment are found important by all participants. Furthermore, health care providers and policy makers valued prescribing safety indicators, insurance companies prioritized indicators focusing on prescribing costs, and patients' organization representatives valued indicators focusing on interpersonal side of prescribing. Representatives of all stakeholders preferred positive formulation of the indicators to motivate health care providers to participate in health improvement programs. A composite score was found to be most useful by all participants as a starting point of prescribing quality assessment. Lack of information on reasons for deviating from guidelines recommendations appeared to be the most important barrier for using prescribing quality indicators. According to the health care providers, there are many legitimate reasons for not prescribing the recommended treatment and these reasons are not always taken into account by external evaluators. The latter may cause mistrust of health care providers towards external stakeholders and limit the use of PQI in external quality improvement programs. Conclusion: Prescribing quality indicators are considered to be an important tool for assessing quality of provided diabetes care by all participants, although the preferences for specific types of indicators may differ by stakeholder depending on their user aim. Introduction of information systems to register the reasons for deviating from the recommended drug treatment may contribute to a more widespread use of PQI for assessment of provided health care quality to diabetic patents. This study identified the potential preferences regarding quality indicators for diabetes care, and this could be used for development of questionnaires to conduct a survey among a larger group of participants