Achievement of weight loss in patients with overweight during dietetic treatment in primary health care

INTRODUCTION:Dietitians are the preferred primary health care professionals for nutritional care in overweight patients. Guidelines for dietitians recommend a weight reduction of ≥ 5% of initial body weight after one year of treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate weight change in patients with overweight who were treated by dietitians in Dutch primary health care, and to identify patient characteristics that were associated with it. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This observational study data was based on real life practice data of patients with overweight during the period 2013-2017, derived from dietetic practices that participated in the Nivel Primary Care Database. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to investigate weight change after dietetic treatment and to explore associations with patient characteristics. RESULTS:In total, data were evaluated from 56 dietetic practices and 4722 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2. The mean treatment time was 3 hours within an average timeframe of 5 months. Overall, patients had a mean weight change of -3.5% (95% CI: -3.8; -3.1) of their initial body weight, and a quarter of the patients reached a weight loss of 5% or more, despite the fact that most patients did not meet the recommended treatment duration of at least one year. The mean BMI change was -1.1 kg/m2 (95% CI: -1.2; -1.0). Higher weight reductions were shown for patients with a higher initial BMI and for patients with a longer treatment time. Sex and age were not associated with weight change, and patients with other dietetic diagnoses, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia, had lower weight reductions. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that dietetic treatment in primary health care coincided with modest weight reduction in patients with overweight. The weight loss goals were not reached for most patients, which was possibly due to a low treatment adherence

Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting:A systematic review

Objective: Although several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) and that has good predictive performance in the assessment of falls risk among older people living independently. Design: A systematic review based on prospective studies. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Tools were excluded if they required expensive and/or advanced software that is not usually available in primary care units and if they had not been validated in at least three different studies. Of 2492 articles published between January 2000 and July 2020, 27 were included. Results: Six falls risk assessment tools were identified: Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Gait Speed test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Functional Reach test and falls history. Most articles reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for these tools. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (eg, TUG, sensitivity:10%–83.3%, specificity:28.4%–96.6%). Conclusions: Given that none of the falls risk assessment tools had sufficient predictive performance (AUC <0.7), other ways of assessing high falls risk among independently living older people in primary care should be investigated. For now, the most suitable way to assess falls risk in the primary care setting appears to involve asking patients about their falls history. Compared with the other five tools, the falls history requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training and no spatial adjustments. The clinical judgement of healthcare professionals continues to be most important, as it enables the identification of high falls risk even for patients with no falls history. Trial registraion number: The Netherlands Trial Register, NL7917; Pre-results

Compliance with the guidelines for acute ankle sprain for physiotherapists is moderate in the Netherlands: an observational study

QuestionWhat is the compliance with guidelines for acute ankle sprain for physiotherapists?DesignSurvey of random sample of physiotherapists.Participants400 physiotherapists working in extramural health care in the Netherlands.Outcome measuresQuestions covered attitude towards guidelines in general, familiarity with the guidelines for acute ankle sprain, compliance with the guidelines, advantages and disadvantages of the guidelines, and factors relating to compliance with the guidelines.ResultsThe majority of the physiotherapists were familiar with the content of the guidelines to some degree and 66% applied it to more than half of their patients with acute ankle sprain. The recommendations to determine both the prognosis and the necessity of treatment by using the function score were the least followed. Some physiotherapists thought the function score was not completely clear, which may have been a barrier for implementation. Factors relating positively to compliance were a positive attitude towards guidelines in general, and having colleagues who implemented the guidelines for acute ankle sprain.ConclusionAlthough compliance with the guidelines for acute ankle sprain was fair/moderate, compliance may be enhanced by improving clarity of the function score, including it in the short version and improving the attitude of physiotherapists towards guidelines in general

Factors associated with physiotherapy provision in a population of elderly nursing home residents; a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Although physiotherapy (PT) plays an important role in improving activities of daily living (ADL functioning) and discharge rates, it is unclear how many nursing home residents receive treatment. Furthermore, there is a lack of insight into the determinants that influence the decision for treatment. In this study, we investigated how many nursing home residents receive PT. In addition, we analysed the factors that contribute to the variation in the provision of PT both between nursing homes and between residents. METHODS: A random sample of 600 elderly residents was taken from a random sample of 15 nursing homes. Residents had to be admitted for rehabilitation or for long-term care. Data were collected through interviews with the nursing home physician and the physiotherapist. Multilevel analysis was used to define the variation in the provision of PT and the factors that are associated with the question whether a resident receives PT or not. Furthermore the amount of PT provided was analysed and the factors that are associated with this. RESULTS: On average 69% of the residents received PT. The percentage of patients receiving treatment differed significantly across nursing homes, and especially the number of physiotherapists available, explained this difference between nursing homes. Residents admitted to a somatic ward for rehabilitation, and male residents in general, were most likely to receive PT. Residents who were treated by a physiotherapist received on average 55 minutes (sd 41) treatment a week. Residents admitted for rehabilitation received more PT a week, as were residents with a status after a total hip replacement. CONCLUSION: PT is most likely to be provided to residents on a somatic ward, recently admitted for rehabilitation to a nursing home, which has a relatively large number of physiotherapists. This suggests a potential under-use of PT for long-term residents with cognitive problems. It is recommended that physiotherapists reconsider which residents may benefit from treatment. This may require a shift in the focus of physiotherapists from 'recovery and discharge' to 'quality of life and well-being'

Falls prevention at GP practices:A description of daily practice

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) can be considered the designated professionals to identify high fall risk and to guide older people to fall preventive care. Currently it is not exactly known how GPs treat this risk. This study aims to investigate GPs’ daily practice regarding fall preventive care for frail older patients. METHODS: Sixty-five GPs from 32 Dutch practices participated in this study for a period of 12 months. When a GP entered specific International Classification of Primary Care-codes related to frailty and/or high fall risk in their Electronic Health Records, a pop-up appeared asking “Is this patient frail?”. If the GP confirmed this, the GP completed a short questionnaire about patient’s fall history and fear of falling (FOF), and the fall preventive care provided. RESULTS: The GPs completed questionnaires regarding 1394 frail older patients aged ≥75. Of 20% of these patients, the GPs did not know whether they had experienced a fall or not. The GPs did not know whether a FOF existed in even more patients (29%). Of the patients with a fall history and/or a FOF (N = 726), 37% (N = 271) received fall preventive care. Two main reasons for not offering fall preventive care to these patients were: I) the patient finds treatment too intensive or too much of a hassle (37%), and II) the GP identified a high fall risk but the patient did not acknowledge this (14%). When patients were treated for high fall risk, the GP and the physiotherapist were the most frequently involved health care providers. The involved health care providers most often treated mobility limitations, cardiovascular risk factors, and FOF. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that GPs were frequently not aware of their frail patient’s fall history and/or FOF and that the majority of the frail older patients with a fall history and/or FOF did not receive fall preventive care. Developing systematic screening strategies for the primary care setting enhancing the identification of high fall risk and the provision of fall preventive care may improve patients’ quality of life and reduce health care costs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01540-7

Achievement of weight loss in patients with overweight during dietetic treatment in primary health care

Introduction:  Dietitians are the preferred primary health care professionals for nutritional care in overweight patients. Guidelines for dietitians recommend a weight reduction of ≥ 5% of initial body weight after one year of treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate weight change in patients with overweight who were treated by dietitians in Dutch primary health care, and to identify patient characteristics that were associated with it. Material and methods:  This observational study data was based on real life practice data of patients with overweight during the period 2013-2017, derived from dietetic practices that participated in the Nivel Primary Care Database. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to investigate weight change after dietetic treatment and to explore associations with patient characteristics. Results:  In total, data were evaluated from 56 dietetic practices and 4722 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2. The mean treatment time was 3 hours within an average timeframe of 5 months. Overall, patients had a mean weight change of -3.5% (95% CI: -3.8; -3.1) of their initial body weight, and a quarter of the patients reached a weight loss of 5% or more, despite the fact that most patients did not meet the recommended treatment duration of at least one year. The mean BMI change was -1.1 kg/m2 (95% CI: -1.2; -1.0). Higher weight reductions were shown for patients with a higher initial BMI and for patients with a longer treatment time. Sex and age were not associated with weight change, and patients with other dietetic diagnoses, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia, had lower weight reductions. Conclusions:  This study showed that dietetic treatment in primary health care coincided with modest weight reduction in patients with overweight. The weight loss goals were not reached for most patients, which was possibly due to a low treatment adherence

Priorities and preferences for care of people with multiple chronic conditions

Background: To guide the development of high-quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers. Aim: This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity. Participants and methods: Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics. Results: Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self-management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity). Conclusion: The JA-CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person-centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Patient contribution: European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA-CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey

Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: A systematic review

Objective: Although several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) and that has good predictive performance in the assessment of falls risk among older people living independently. Design: A systematic review based on prospective studies. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Tools were excluded if they required expensive and/or advanced software that is not usually available in primary care units and if they had not been validated in at least three different studies. Of 2492 articles published between January 2000 and July 2020, 27 were included. Results: Six falls risk assessment tools were identified: Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Gait Speed test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Functional Reach test and falls history. Most articles reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for these tools. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (eg, TUG, sensitivity:10%–83.3%, specificity:28.4%–96.6%). Conclusions: Given that none of the falls risk assessment tools had sufficient predictive performance (AUC <0.7), other ways of assessing high falls risk among independently living older people in primary care should be investigated. For now, the most suitable way to assess falls risk in the primary care setting appears to involve asking patients about their falls history. Compared with the other five tools, the falls history requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training and no spatial adjustments. The clinical judgement of healthcare professionals continues to be most important, as it enables the identification of high falls risk even for patients with no falls history. Trial registraion number: The Netherlands Trial Register, NL7917; Pre-results

Recording of weight in electronic health records: an observational study in general practice

Abstract Background Routine weight recording in electronic health records (EHRs) could assist general practitioners (GPs) in the identification, prevention, and management of overweight patients. However, the extent to which weight management is embedded in general practice in the Netherlands has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency of weight recording in general practice in the Netherlands for patients who self-reported as being overweight. The specific objectives of this study were to assess whether weight recording varied according to patient characteristics, and to determine the frequency of weight recording over time for patients with and without a chronic condition related to being overweight. Methods Baseline data from the Occupational and Environmental Health Cohort Study (2012) were combined with data from EHRs of general practices (2012–2015). Data concerned 3446 self-reported overweight patients who visited their GP in 2012, and 1516 patients who visited their GP every year between 2012 and 2015. Logistic multilevel regression analyses were performed to identify associations between patient characteristics and weight recording. Results In 2012, weight was recorded in the EHRs of a quarter of patients who self-reported as being overweight. Greater age, lower education level, higher self-reported body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or cardiovascular disorders were associated with higher rates of weight recording. The strongest association was found for diabetes mellitus (adjusted OR = 10.3; 95% CI [7.3, 14.5]). Between 2012 and 2015, 90% of patients with diabetes mellitus had at least one weight measurement recorded in their EHR. In the group of patients without a chronic condition related to being overweight, this percentage was 33%. Conclusions Weight was frequently recorded for overweight patients with a chronic condition, for whom regular weight measurement is recommended in clinical guidelines, and for which weight recording is a performance indicator as part of the payment system. For younger patients and those without a chronic condition related to being overweight, weight was less frequently recorded. For these patients, routine recording of weight in EHRs deserves more attention, with the aim to support early recognition and treatment of overweight