Does the attention General Practitioners pay to their patients' mental health problems add to their workload? A cross sectional national survey

BACKGROUND: The extra workload induced by patients with mental health problems may sometimes cause GPs to be reluctant to become involved in mental health care. It is known that dealing with patients' mental health problems is more time consuming in specific situations such as in consultations. But it is unclear if GPs who are more often involved in patients' mental health problems, have a higher workload than other GPs. Therefore we investigated the following: Is the attention GPs pay to their patients' mental health problems related to their subjective and objective workload? METHODS: Secondary analyses were made using data from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, a cross sectional study conducted in the Netherlands in 2000–2002. A nationally representative selection of 195 GPs from 104 general practices participated in this National Survey. Data from: 1) a GP questionnaire; 2) a detailed log of the GP's time use during a week and; 3) an electronic medical registration system, including all patients' contacts during a year, were used. Multiple regression analyses were conducted with the GP's workload as an outcome measure, and the GP's attention for mental health problems as a predictor. GP, patient, and practice characteristics were included in analyses as potential confounders. RESULTS: Results show that GPs with a broader perception of their role towards mental health care do not have more working hours or patient contacts than GPs with a more limited perception of their role. Neither are they more exhausted or dissatisfied with the available time. Also the number of patient contacts in which a psychological or social diagnosis is made is not related to the GP's objective or subjective workload. CONCLUSION: The GP's attention for a patient's mental health problems is not related to their workload. The GP's extra workload when dealing in a consultation with patients' mental health problems, as is demonstrated in earlier research, is not automatically translated into a higher overall workload. This study does not confirm GPs' complaints that mental health care is one of the components of their job that consumes a lot of their time and energy. Several explanations for these results are discussed

Use of risk stratification to target therapies in patients with recent onset arthritis; design of a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial

Background. Early and intensive treatment is important to inducing remission and preventing joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. While intensive combination therapy (Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs and/or biologicals) is the most effective, rheumatologists in daily clinical practice prefer to start with monotherapy methotrexate and bridging corticosteroids. Intensive treatment should be started as soon as the first symptoms manifest, but at this early stage, ACR criteria may not be fulfilled, and there is a danger of over-treatment. We will therefore determine which induction therapy is most effective in the very early stage of persistent arthritis. To overcome over-treatment and under-treatment, the intensity of induction therapy will be based on a prediction model that predicts patients' propensity for persistent arthritis. Methods. A multicenter stratified randomized single-blind controlled trial is currently being performed in patients 18 years or older with recent-onset arthritis. Eight hundred ten patients are being stratified according to the likelihood of their developing persistent arthritis. In patients with a high probability of persistent arthritis, we will study combination Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug therapy compared to monotherapy methotrexate. In patients with an intermediate probability of persistent arthritis, we will study Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug of various intensities. In patients with a low probability, we will study non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hydroxychloroquine and a single dose of corticosteroids. If disease activity is not sufficiently reduced, treatment will be adjusted according to a step-up protocol. If remission is achieved for at least six months, medication will be tapered off. Patients will be followed up every three months over two years. Discussion. This is the first rheumatological study to base treatment in early arthritis on a prediction rule. Treatment will be stratified according to the probability of persistent arthritis, and different combinations of treatment per stratum will be evaluated. Treatment will be started early, and patients will not need to meet the ACR-criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Trial registration. This trial has been registered in Current Controlled Trials with the ISRCTN26791028

Do list size and remuneration affect GPs' decisions about how they provide consultations?

Background: Doctors' professional behaviour is influenced by the way they are paid. When GPs are paid per item, i.e., on a fee-for-service basis (FFS), there is a clear relationship between workload and income: more work means more money. In the case of capitation based payment, workload is not directly linked to income since the fees per patient are fixed. In this study list size was considered as an indicator for workload and we investigated how list size and remuneration affect GP decisions about how they provide consultations. The main objectives of this study were to investigate a) how list size is related to consultation length, waiting time to get an appointment, and the likelihood that GPs conduct home visits and b) to what extent the relationships between list size and these three variables are affected by remuneration. Methods: List size was used because this is an important determinant of objective workload. List size was corrected for number of older patients and patients who lived in deprived areas. We focussed on three dependent variables that we expected to be related to remuneration and list size: consultation length; waiting time to get an appointment; and home visits. Data were derived from the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2), carried out between 2000 and 2002. The data were collected using electronic medical records, videotaped consultations and postal surveys. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess the hypothesized relationships. Results: Our results indicate that list size is negatively related to consultation length, especially among GPs with relatively large lists. A correlation between list size and waiting time to get an appointment, and a correlation between list size and the likelihood of a home visit were only found for GPs with small practices. These correlations are modified by the proportion of patients for whom GPs receive capitation fees. Waiting times to get an appointment tend to become shorter with increasing patient lists when there is a larger capitation percentage. The likelihood that GPs will conduct home visit rises with increasing patient lists when the capitation percentage is small. Conclusion: Remuneration appears to affect GPs' decisions about how they provide consultations, especially among GPs with relatively small patient lists. This role is, however, small compared to other factors such as patient characteristics.

Labour intensity of guidelines may have a greater effect on adherence than GPs' workload

Background: Physicians' heavy workload is often thought to jeopardise the quality of care and to be a barrier to improving quality. The relationship between these has, however, rarely been investigated. In this study quality of care is defined as care 'in accordance with professional guidelines'. In this study we investigated whether GPs with a higher workload adhere less to guidelines than those with a lower workload and whether guideline recommendations that require a greater time investment are less adhered to than those that can save time. Methods: Data were used from the Second Dutch National survey of General Practice (DNSGP- 2). This nationwide study was carried out between April 2000 and January 2002. A multilevel logistic-regression analysis was conducted of 170,677 decisions made by GPs, referring to 41 Guideline Adherence Indicators (GAIs), which were derived from 32 different guidelines. Data were used from 130 GPs, working in 83 practices with 98,577 patients. GP-characteristics as well as guideline characteristics were used as independent variables. Measures include workload (number of contacts), hours spent on continuing medical education, satisfaction with available time, practice characteristics and patient characteristics. Outcome measure is an indicator score, which is 1 when a decision is in accordance with professional guidelines or 0 when the decision deviates from guidelines. Results: On average, 66% of the decisions GPs made were in accordance with guidelines. No relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and their adherence to guidelines. Subjective workload (measured on a five point scale) was negatively related to guideline adherence (OR = 0.95). After controlling for all other variables, the variation between GPs in adherence to guideline recommendations showed a range of less than 10%. 84% of the variation in guideline adherence was located at the GAI-level. Which means that the differences in adherence levels between guidelines are much larger than differences between GPs. Guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment during the same consultation are significantly less adhered to: (OR = 0.46), while those that can save time have much higher adherence levels: OR = 1.55). Recommendations that reduce the likelihood of a follow-up consultation for the same problem are also more often adhered to compared to those that have no influence on this (OR = 3.13). Conclusion: No significant relationship was found between the objective workload of GPs and adherence to guidelines. However, guideline recommendations that require an extra time investment are significantly less well adhered to while those that can save time are significantly more often adhered to.

Minor surgery in general practice and effects on referrals to hospital care: Observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Strengthening primary care is the focus of many countries, as national healthcare systems with a strong primary care sector tend to have lower healthcare costs. However, it is unknown to what extent general practitioners (GPs) that perform more services generate fewer hospital referrals. The objective of this study was to examine the association between the number of surgical interventions and hospital referrals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were derived from electronic medical records of 48 practices that participated in the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH) in 2006-2007. For each care-episode of benign neoplasm skin/nevus, sebaceous cyst or laceration/cut it was determined whether the patient was referred to a medical specialist and/or minor surgery was performed. Multilevel multinomial regression analyses were used to determine the relation between minor surgery and hospital referrals on the level of the GP-practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Referral rates differed between diagnoses, with 1.0% of referrals for a laceration/cut, 8.2% for a sebaceous cyst and 10.2% for benign neoplasm skin/nevus. The GP practices performed minor surgery for a laceration/cut in 8.9% (SD:14.6) of the care-episodes, for a benign neoplasm skin/nevus in 27.4% (SD:14.4) of cases and for a sebaceous cyst in 26.4% (SD:13.8). GP practices that performed more minor surgery interventions had a lower referral rate for patients with a laceration/cut (-0.38; 95%CI:-0.60- -0.11) and those with a sebaceous cyst (-0.42; 95%CI:-0.63- -0.16), but not for people with benign neoplasm skin/nevus (-0.26; 95%CI:-0.51-0.03). However, the absolute difference in referral rate appeared to be relevant only for sebaceous cysts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The effects of minor surgery vary between diagnoses. Minor surgery in general practice appears to be a substitute for specialist medical care only in relation to sebaceous cysts. Measures to stimulate minor surgery for sebaceous cysts may induce substitution.</p

How to juggle priorities? An interactive tool to provide quantitative support for strategic patient-mix decisions: an ophthalmology case

An interactive tool was developed for the ophthalmology department of the Academic Medical Center to quantitatively support management with strategic patient-mix decisions. The tool enables management to alter the number of patients in various patient groups and to see the consequences in terms of key performance indicators. In our case study, we focused on the bottleneck: the operating room. First, we performed a literature review to identify all factors that influence an operating room's utilization rate. Next, we decided which factors were relevant to our study. For these relevant factors, two quantitative methods were applied to quantify the impact of an individual factor: regression analysis and computer simulation. Finally, the average duration of an operation, the number of cancellations due to overrun of previous surgeries, and the waiting time target for elective patients all turned out to have significant impact. Accordingly, for the case study, the interactive tool was shown to offer management quantitative decision support to act proactively to expected alterations in patient-mix. Hence, management can anticipate the future situation, and either alter the expected patient-mix or expand capacity to ensure that the key performance indicators will be met in the future

Is the beck anxiety inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in The Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.</p