Perceived barriers for treatment of chronic heart failure in general practice; are they affecting performance?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine to what extent barriers perceived by general practitioners (GPs) for prescribing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients are related to underuse and underdosing of these drugs in actual practice. METHODS: Barriers were assessed with a semi-structured questionnaire. Prescribing data were extracted from GPs' computerised medical records for a random sample of their CHF patients. Relations between barriers and prescribing behaviour were assessed by means of Spearman rank correlation and multivariate regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs prescribed ACE-I to 45% of their patients and had previously initiated such treatment in an additional 3.5%, in an average standardised dose of 13.5 mg. They perceived a median of four barriers in prescribing ACE-I or optimising ACE-I dose. Many GPs found it difficult to change treatment initiated by a cardiologist. Furthermore, initiating ACE-I in patients already using a diuretic or stable on their current medication was perceived as barrier. Titrating the ACE-I dose was seen as difficult by more than half of the GPs. No significant relationships could be found between the barriers perceived and actual ACE-I prescribing. Regarding ACE-I dosing, the few GPs who did not agree that the ACE-I should be as high as possible prescribed higher ACE-I doses. CONCLUSION: Variation between GPs in prescribing ACE-I for CHF cannot be explained by differences in the barriers they perceive. Tailor-made interventions targeting only those doctors that perceive a specific barrier will therefore not be an efficient approach to improve quality of care

Adherence to professional guidelines for patients with urinary incontinence by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

Contains fulltext : 69554.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common problem, affecting quality of life and leading to high costs. There is doubt about the use of clinical practice guidelines on urinary incontinence in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess adherence levels and reasons for (non)adherence to the Guideline on Urinary Incontinence of the Dutch College of General Practitioners. Design, setting and participants A postal survey among Dutch general practitioners (GPs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adherence of GPs to the guideline. RESULTS: We analysed 264 questionnaires. Almost all GPs adhered to the guideline when diagnosing the type of urinary incontinence. A bladder diary is not often used (35%). Adherence to therapeutic procedures was only high for mild/moderate stress urinary incontinence: most GPs (82.6%) used adequate advice on bladder retraining and pelvic floor muscle training. One out of four GPs agreed that adhering to the guideline is difficult, mainly owing to lack of time, staff, diagnostic tools, competences to provide this care and low motivation of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GPs follow the guideline only partially: compliance with diagnostic advices is fairly good; compliance with treatment advices is low. Further research should focus on solutions how to support GPs to tackle major barriers to facilitate the adherence to guidelines (substitution of tasks to specialized nurses, reducing the threshold for referral and concentrating expertise in integrated continence care services)

Persisting rise in referrals during labor in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 128459.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Background: There are concerns about the Dutch maternity care system, characterized by a strict role division between primary and secondary care. The objective of this study was to describe trends in referrals and in perinatal outcomes among labors that started in primary midwife-led care. Methods: We performed a descriptive study of all 789,795 labors that started in primary midwife-led care during 2000 to 2008 in The Netherlands. Referrals to obstetrician-led care or pediatrician were classified as urgent or nonurgent. Perinatal safety was described by perinatal mortality (intrapartum or neonatal 0–7 days), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 0–7 days, and Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes. Results: The proportion of referrals during labor or after birth declined from 52.6 to 42.6 percent for nulliparous women and from 83.2 to 76.7 percent for multiparous women. Especially nonurgent referrals during the first stage increased, for nulliparous women from 28.7 to 40.7 percent and for multiparous women from 10.5 to 16.5 percent. Referrals were less frequent in planned home births. Perinatal mortality was 0.9 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 0.6 per thousand for multiparous women. A low Apgar score was registered in 8.6 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 4.1 per thousand for multiparous women. Conclusions: There was a considerable rise in nonurgent referrals to obstetrician-led care in primary midwife-led care during labor. Perinatal safety did not improve significantly over time. The persisting rise in referrals challenges the sustainability of the current strict role division between primary and secondary maternity care in The Netherlands.10 p