Advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of Pay-for-Quality programs in Belgium

Advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of the introduction of ‘Pay for Quality’ programmes in Belgiu

Interdisciplinary diabetes care teams operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care: findings from the Leuven Diabetes Project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex, progressive disease which requires a variety of quality improvement strategies. Limited information is available on the feasibility and effectiveness of interdisciplinary diabetes care teams (IDCT) operating on the interface between primary and specialty care. A first study hypothesis was that the implementation of an IDCT is feasible in a health care setting with limited tradition in shared care. A second hypothesis was that patients who make use of an IDCT would have significantly better outcomes compared to non-users of the IDCT after an 18-month intervention period. A third hypothesis was that patients who used the IDCT in an Advanced quality Improvement Program (AQIP) would have significantly better outcomes compared to users of a Usual Quality Improvement Program (UQIP).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This investigation comprised a two-arm cluster randomized trial conducted in a primary care setting in Belgium. Primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 120) and their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 2495) were included and subjects were randomly assigned to the intervention arms. The IDCT acted as a cornerstone to both the intervention arms, but the number, type and intensity of IDCT related interventions varied depending upon the intervention arm.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Final registration included 67 PCPs and 1577 patients in the AQIP and 53 PCPs and 918 patients in the UQIP. 84% of the PCPs made use of the IDCT. The expected participation rate in patients (30%) was not attained, with 12,5% of the patients using the IDCT. When comparing users and non-users of the IDCT (irrespective of the intervention arm) and after 18 months of intervention the use of the IDCT was significantly associated with improvements in HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, an increase in statins and anti-platelet therapy as well as the number of targets that were reached. When comparing users of the IDCT in the two intervention arms no significant differences were noted, except for anti-platelet therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>IDCT's operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care. More research is required on what team and program characteristics contribute to improvements in diabetes care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NTR 1369.</p

Patient perspective on the management of atrial fibrillation in five European countries

Bakhai A, Sandberg A, Mittendorf T, et al. Patient perspective on the management of atrial fibrillation in five European countries. In: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. Vol 13. BMC; 2013

Reasons of general practitioners for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication to patients with diabetes: a qualitative study

Background: Lipid-lowering medication remains underused, even in high-risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine factors underlying general practitioners' decisions not to prescribe such drugs to patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews using real cases was conducted to explore reasons for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication after a guideline was distributed that recommended the use of statins in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, and analysed using an analytic inductive approach. Results: Reasons for not-prescribing could be divided into patient and physician-attributed factors. According to the GPs, some patients do not follow-up on agreed medication and others object to taking lipid-lowering medication, partly for legitimate reasons such as expected or perceived side effects. Furthermore, the GPs themselves perceived reservations for prescribing lipid-lowering medication in patients with short life expectancy, expected compliance problems or near goal lipid levels. GPs sometimes postponed the start of treatment because of other priorities. Finally, barriers were seen in the GPs' practice organisation, and at the primary-secondary care interface. Conclusion: Some of the barriers mentioned by GPs seem to be valid reasons, showing that guideline non-adherence can be quite rational. On the other hand, treatment quality could improve by addressing issues, such as lack of knowledge or motivation of both the patient and the GP. More structured management in general practice may also lead to better treatment

Counting on commitment; the quality of primary care-led diabetes management in a system with minimal incentives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of the present study was to assess the performance of three primary care-led initiatives providing structured care to patients with Type 2 diabetes in Ireland, a country with minimal incentives to promote the quality of care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data, from three primary care initiatives, were available for 3010 adult patients with Type 2 diabetes. Results were benchmarked against the national guidelines for the management of Type 2 diabetes in the community and results from the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) for England (2008/2009) and the Scottish Diabetes Survey (2009).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The recording of clinical processes of care was similar to results in the UK however the recording of lifestyle factors was markedly lower. Recording of HbA1c, blood pressure and lipids exceeded 85%. Recording of retinopathy screening (71%) was also comparable to England (77%) and Scotland (90%). Only 63% of patients had smoking status recorded compared to 99% in Scotland while 70% had BMI recorded compared to 89% in England. A similar proportion of patients in this initiative and the UK achieved clinical targets. Thirty-five percent of patients achieved a target HbA1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) compared to 25% in England. Applying the NICE target for blood pressure (≤ 140/80 mmHg), 54% of patients reached this target comparable to 60% in England. Slightly less patients were categorised as obese (> 30 kg/m²) in Ireland (50%, n = 1060) compared to Scotland (54%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has demonstrated what can be achieved by proactive and interested health professionals in the absence of national infrastructure to support high quality diabetes care. The quality of primary care-led diabetes management in the three initiatives studied appears broadly consistent with results from the UK with the exception of recording lifestyle factors. The challenge facing health systems is to establish quality assurance a responsibility for all health care professionals rather than the subject of special interest for a few.</p

A cluster randomized trial to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines on diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians in Belgium: study protocol [NTR 1369]

Contains fulltext : 70617.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most quality improvement programs in diabetes care incorporate aspects of clinician education, performance feedback, patient education, care management, and diabetes care teams to support primary care physicians. Few studies have applied all of these dimensions to address clinical inertia. AIM: To evaluate interventions to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in Belgium. INTERVENTIONS: Primary care physicians will be randomly allocated to 'Usual' (UQIP) or 'Advanced' (AQIP) Quality Improvement Programs. Physicians in the UQIP will receive interventions addressing the main physician, patient, and office system factors that contribute to clinical inertia. Physicians in the AQIP will receive additional interventions that focus on sustainable behavior changes in patients and providers. OUTCOMES: Primary endpoints are the proportions of patients within targets for three clinical outcomes: 1) glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%; 2) systolic blood pressure differences </=130 mmHg; and 3) low density lipoprotein/cholesterol < 100 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints are individual improvements in 12 validated parameters: glycosylated hemoglobin, low and high density lipoprotein/cholesterol, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, weight, physical exercise, healthy diet, smoking status, and statin and anti-platelet therapy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ANALYSIS: Statistical analyses will be performed using an intent-to-treat approach with a multilevel model. Linear and generalized linear mixed models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data, i.e., patients clustered withinimary care physicians, and repeated assessments clustered within patients. To compare patient characteristics at baseline and between the intervention arms, the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach will be used, taking the clustered nature of the data within physicians into account. We will also use the GEE approach to test for differences in evolution of the primary and secondary endpoints for all patients, and for patients in the two interventions arms, accounting for within-patient clustering. TRIAL REGISTRATION: number: NTR 1369

Barriers and facilitators to evidence based care of type 2 diabetes patients: experiences of general practitioners participating to a quality improvement program

Objective To evaluate the barriers and facilitators to high-quality diabetes care as experienced by general practitioners (GPs) who participated in an 18-month quality improvement program (QIP). This QIP was implemented to promote compliance with international guidelines. Methods Twenty out of the 120 participating GPs in the QIP underwent semi-structured interviews that focused on three questions: 'Which changes did you implement or did you observe in the quality of diabetes care during your participation in the QIP?' 'According to your experience, what induced these changes?' and 'What difficulties did you experience in making the changes?' Results Most GPs reported that enhanced knowledge, improved motivation, and a greater sense of responsibility were the key factors that led to greater compliance with diabetes care guidelines and consequent improvements in diabetes care. Other factors were improved communication with patients and consulting specialists and reliance on diabetes nurse educators. Some GPs were reluctant to collaborate with specialists, and especially with diabetes educators and dieticians. Others blamed poor compliance with the guidelines on lack of time. Most interviewees reported that a considerable minority of patients were unwilling to change their lifestyles. Conclusion Qualitative research nested in an experimental trial may clarify the improvements that a QIP may bring about in a general practice, provide insight into GPs' approach to diabetes care and reveal the program's limits. Implementation of a QIP encounters an array of cognitive, motivational, and relational obstacles that are embedded in a patient-healthcare provider relationshipGeert Goderis, Liesbeth Borgermans, Chantal Mathieu, Carine Van Den Broeke, Karen Hannes, Jan Heyrman and Richard Gro

What does 'complex' mean in palliative care? Triangulating qualitative findings from 3 settings

Background: Complex need for patients with a terminal illness distinguishes those who would benefit from specialist palliative care from those who could be cared for by non-specialists. However, the nature of this complexity is not well defined or understood. This study describes how health professionals, from three distinct settings in the United Kingdom, understand complex need in palliative care. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with professionals in primary care, hospital and hospice settings. Thirty-four professionals including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals were recruited in total. Data collected in each setting were thematically analysed and a workshop was convened to compare and contrast findings across settings. Results: The interaction between diverse multi-dimensional aspects of need, existing co-morbidities, intractable symptoms and complicated social and psychological issues increased perceived complexity. Poor communication between patients and their clinicians contributed to complexity. Professionals in primary and acute care described themselves as ‘generalists’ and felt they lacked confidence and skill in identifying and caring for complex patients and time for professional development in palliative care. Conclusions: Complexity in the context of palliative care can be inherent to the patient or perceived by health professionals. Lack of confidence, time constraints and bed pressures contribute to perceived complexity, but are amenable to change by training in identifying, prognosticating for, and communicating with patients approaching the end of life