The use of out-of-hours primary care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, General Practitioners (GP) are usually the first point of contact with a health professional for most health problems. Out-of-hours (OOH) primary care is provided by regional OOH services. Changes in consultation rates at OOH services may be regarded as a warning system for failures elsewhere in the healthcare system. Therefore in this study, we investigated how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the use of primary care OOH services during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Routine electronic health records data were used from 60% of OOH services in the Netherlands, collected by the Nivel Primary Care Database. We compared consultation rates per week (2020) for COVID-19-like symptoms and other health problems (e.g. small traumas, urinary tract infections), for different age groups, the proportion of remote consultations, and different levels of urgency during the pandemic compared to the same period in 2019. RESULTS: The number of consultations for COVID-19-like symptoms peaked at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, while consultations for other health problems decreased. These changes in consultation rates differed between age groups. Remote consultations took place more frequently for all health problems, while the proportion of non-urgent health problems increased. CONCLUSION: There were significant changes in the number of consultations and the proportion that were remote for COVID-19-like symptoms and other health problems. Especially care for babies and young children decreased, while the number of consultations for older adults remained stable. The continued use of OOH services by older adults suggests there were unmet care needs elsewhere in our healthcare system. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08096-x

Electronic Health Record-Triggered Research Infrastructure Combining Real-world Electronic Health Record Data and Patient-Reported Outcomes to Detect Benefits, Risks, and Impact of Medication:Development Study

BACKGROUND: Real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) represent a wealth of information for studying the benefits and risks of medical treatment. However, they are limited in scope and should be complemented by information from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an innovative research infrastructure that combines information from EHRs with patient experiences reported in questionnaires to monitor the risks and benefits of medical treatment. METHODS: We focused on the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in general practice as a use case. To develop the Benefit, Risk, and Impact of Medication Monitor (BRIMM) infrastructure, we first performed a requirement analysis. BRIMM’s starting point is routinely recorded general practice EHR data that are sent to the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database weekly. Patients with OAB were flagged weekly on the basis of diagnoses and prescriptions. They were invited subsequently for participation by their general practitioner (GP), via a trusted third party. Patients received a series of questionnaires on disease status, pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, adverse drug reactions, drug adherence, and quality of life. The questionnaires and a dedicated feedback portal were developed in collaboration with a patient association for pelvic-related diseases, Bekkenbodem4All. Participating patients and GPs received feedback. An expert meeting was organized to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new research infrastructure. RESULTS: The BRIMM infrastructure was developed and implemented. In the Nivel Primary Care Database, 2933 patients with OAB from 27 general practices were flagged. GPs selected 1636 (55.78%) patients who were eligible for the study, of whom 295 (18.0% of eligible patients) completed the first questionnaire. A total of 288 (97.6%) patients consented to the linkage of their questionnaire data with their EHR data. According to experts, the strengths of the infrastructure were the linkage of patient-reported outcomes with EHR data, comparison of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, flexibility of the infrastructure, and low registration burden for GPs. Methodological weaknesses, such as susceptibility to bias, patient selection, and low participation rates among GPs and patients, were seen as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities represent usefulness for policy makers and health professionals, conditional approval of medication, data linkage to other data sources, and feedback to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The BRIMM research infrastructure has the potential to assess the benefits and safety of (medical) treatment in real-life situations using a unique combination of EHRs and patient-reported outcomes. As patient involvement is an important aspect of the treatment process, generating knowledge from clinical and patient perspectives is valuable for health care providers, patients, and policy makers. The developed methodology can easily be applied to other treatments and health problems

Characteristics of medical deserts and approaches to mitigate their health work-force issues : A scoping review of empirical studies in Western countries

Background Medical deserts are considered a problematic issue for many Western countries which try to employ multitude of policies and initiatives to achieve a better distribution of their health workforce (HWF). The aim of this study was to systematically map research and provide an overview of definitions, characteristics, contributing factors and approaches to mitigate medical deserts within the European Union (EU)-funded project “ROUTE-HWF” (a Roadmap OUT of mEdical deserts into supportive Health WorkForce initiatives and policies). Methods We performed a scoping review to identify knowledge clusters/research gaps in the field of medical deserts focusing on HWF issues. Six databases were searched till June 2021. Studies reporting primary research from Western countries on definitions, characteristics, contributing factors, and approaches were included. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered studies according to the four defined outcomes. Results Two-hundred and forty studies were included (n = 116, 48% Australia/New Zealand; n = 105, 44% North America; n = 20, 8% Europe). All used observational designs except for five quasi-experimental studies. Studies provided definitions (n = 171, 71%), characteristics (n = 95, 40%), contributing factors (n = 112, 47%), and approaches to mitigate medical deserts (n = 87, 36%). Most medical deserts were defined by the density of the population in an area. Contributing factors to HWF issues in medical deserts consisted in work-related (n = 55, 23%) and lifestyle-related factors (n = 33, 14%) of the HWF as well as sociodemographic characteristics (n = 79, 33%). Approaches to mitigate them focused on training adapted to the scope of rural practice (n = 67, 28%), HWF distribution (n = 3, 1%), support/infrastructure (n = 8, 3%) and innovative models of care (n = 7, 3%). Conclusion Our study provides the first scoping review that presents and categorizes definitions, characteristics, contributing factors, and approaches to mitigate HWF issues in medical deserts. We identified gaps such as the scarcity of longitudinal studies to investigate the impact of factors contributing to medical deserts, and interventional studies to evaluate the effectiveness of approaches to mitigate HWF issues.©2023 Authors. Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Reusing and publishing IJHPM published articles (main text, tables, and figures) is permitted by following Creative Commons user license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

Long-Term Survival in a Large Cohort of Patients with Venous Thrombosis: Incidence and Predictors

Linda Flinterman and colleagues report on the long-term mortality rate for individuals who have experienced a first venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. They describe an ongoing elevated risk of death for individuals who had experienced a venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism as compared to controls, for up to eight years after the event

Prevalence and incidence rate of hospital admissions related to medication between 2008 and 2013 in The Netherlands

PURPOSE: In 2009 a Dutch guideline was published containing recommendations to reduce Hospital Admissions Related to Medications (HARMs). This study aims to examine time-trends of HARMs and their potential preventability between 2008 and 2013 in The Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective prevalence study was conducted using the Dutch PHARMO Database Network. A semi-automated pre-selection was used to make a crude identification of possible HARMs of which four samples were selected. These were independently assessed with respect to causality and potential preventability by a physician and pharmacist. The results were stratified by age into 18-64 years and 65 years and older. For these groups the net prevalences and incidence rates of HARMs and potentially preventable HARMs were calculated for the years 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013. RESULTS: Four samples of 467 (2008), 447 (2009), 446 (2011) and 408 (2013) admissions were assessed. The net prevalence of HARMs in the 18-64 years group was approximately four times smaller compared to the older group with a mean prevalence of 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]:2.4%-3.0%) and 10.2% (95%CI: 9.7%-10.7%) respectively. The potential preventability was 25.1% (18.4%-31.8%) and 48.3% (95%CI: 44.8%-51.8%), respectively. The prevalence of HARMs in both groups did not change significantly between 2008 and 2013 with 2.4% (95%CI: 1.9%-3.0%) and 10.0% (95%CI: 9.0%-11.0%) in 2008 and 3.1% (2.7%-3.5%) and 10.4% (95%CI: 9.4%-11.4%) in 2013, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to reduce HARMs, the prevalence did not decrease over time. Additional measures are therefore necessary, especially in the elderly population

Impact of a Restriction in Reimbursement on Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients with an Increased Risk of Gastric Complications

Governments have several options to reduce the increasing costs of health care, including restrictions for the reimbursement of medicines. Next to the intended effect of reduced costs for medicines, reimbursement restriction can have unintended effects such as patients refraining from their treatment which may lead to health problems and increased use of health care. An example of a reimbursement restriction is the one for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) that became effective in the Netherlands in January 2012. A major unintended effect of this measure could be that high-risk patients who start with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose aspirin (aspirin) and who have an increased risk of gastric complications for which they are prescribed PPIs refrain from this PPI treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the reimbursement restriction among high-risk users of NSAIDs or aspirin. Do these patients refrain from their PPI treatment and if so do they have an increased risk of gastric complications? Part of the patients starting with NSAIDs or aspirin have an increased risk of gastric complications due to their age, comorbidities, or co-medication. The incidence of PPI use during the 2 years before the reimbursement restriction (2010 and 2011) and 2 years after the introduction of the reimbursement restriction was compared for patients on NSAIDs or aspirin with an increased risk of developing gastric complications. Impact of age, sex, and social economic status (SES) was taken into account. Hospital admissions due to gastric complications were studied over the same period (2010–2013). Data were obtained from a large population-based primary care database and a hospital database. The use of PPIs in patients with an increased risk of gastric complications who started NSAID/aspirin increased from 40% in 2010 to 55% in 2013. No impact was found of age, sex, or SES. There was no increase in hospital admissions due to gastric complications after the reimbursement restriction. The reimbursement restriction on PPIs was not associated with any detectable unintended effects for patients with an increased risk of gastric complications

The use of out-of-hours primary care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background In the Netherlands, General Practitioners (GP) are usually the first point of contact with a health professional for most health problems. Out-of-hours (OOH) primary care is provided by regional OOH services. Changes in consultation rates at OOH services may be regarded as a warning system for failures elsewhere in the healthcare system. Therefore in this study, we investigated how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the use of primary care OOH services during the first year of the pandemic. Methods Routine electronic health records data were used from 60% of OOH services in the Netherlands, collected by the Nivel Primary Care Database. We compared consultation rates per week (2020) for COVID-19-like symptoms and other health problems (e.g. small traumas, urinary tract infections), for different age groups, the proportion of remote consultations, and different levels of urgency during the pandemic compared to the same period in 2019. Results The number of consultations for COVID-19-like symptoms peaked at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, while consultations for other health problems decreased. These changes in consultation rates differed between age groups. Remote consultations took place more frequently for all health problems, while the proportion of non-urgent health problems increased. Conclusion There were significant changes in the number of consultations and the proportion that were remote for COVID-19-like symptoms and other health problems. Especially care for babies and young children decreased, while the number of consultations for older adults remained stable. The continued use of OOH services by older adults suggests there were unmet care needs elsewhere in our healthcare system

Venous thrombosis of the upper extremity: effect of blood group and coagulation factor levels on risk

Venous thrombosis of the upper extremity is a rare form of thrombosis, accounting for around 4% of all venous thromboses, and for which only a few risk factors are known. This case-control study investigated the effect of coagulation factors on risk of venous thrombosis of the upper extremity. Patients with venous thrombosis of the arm and partner controls were selected from the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment study, a large population-based case-control study. Participants with a malignancy were excluded. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated for elevated levels of factor II, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, von Willebrand Factor (VWF), and fibrinogen, low levels of protein C, protein S, and antithrombin, and for blood group non-O. Substantially increased risks of venous thrombosis of the upper extremity were found for patients with high levels (above 90th percentile versus below) of factor VIII (OR: 4·2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·2–7·9), VWF (OR: 4·0, 95% CI: 2·1–7·8), fibrinogen (OR: 2·9, 95% CI, 1·5–5·7), and for blood group non-O compared to O (OR: 2·1, 95% CI, 1·3–3·6). The other factors were not associated with an increased risk. Elevated levels of several procoagulant factors are associated with a strongly increased risk of venous thrombosis of the upper extremity.\ud \u

Electronic health record-triggered research infrastructure combining real-world electronic health record data and patient-reported outcomes to detect benefits, risks, and impact of medication: Development study

Background: Real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) represent a wealth of information for studying the benefits and risks of medical treatment. However, they are limited in scope and should be complemented by information from the patient perspective. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop an innovative research infrastructure that combines information from EHRs with patient experiences reported in questionnaires to monitor the risks and benefits of medical treatment. Methods: We focused on the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in general practice as a use case. To develop the Benefit, Risk, and Impact of Medication Monitor (BRIMM) infrastructure, we first performed a requirement analysis. BRIMM’s starting point is routinely recorded general practice EHR data that are sent to the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database weekly. Patients with OAB were flagged weekly on the basis of diagnoses and prescriptions. They were invited subsequently for participation by their general practitioner (GP), via a trusted third party. Patients received a series of questionnaires on disease status, pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, adverse drug reactions, drug adherence, and quality of life. The questionnaires and a dedicated feedback portal were developed in collaboration with a patient association for pelvic-related diseases, Bekkenbodem4All. Participating patients and GPs received feedback. An expert meeting was organized to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new research infrastructure. Results: The BRIMM infrastructure was developed and implemented. In the Nivel Primary Care Database, 2933 patients with OAB from 27 general practices were flagged. GPs selected 1636 (55.78%) patients who were eligible for the study, of whom 295 (18.0% of eligible patients) completed the first questionnaire. A total of 288 (97.6%) patients consented to the linkage of their questionnaire data with their EHR data. According to experts, the strengths of the infrastructure were the linkage of patient-reported outcomes with EHR data, comparison of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, flexibility of the infrastructure, and low registration burden for GPs. Methodological weaknesses, such as susceptibility to bias, patient selection, and low participation rates among GPs and patients, were seen as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities represent usefulness for policy makers and health professionals, conditional approval of medication, data linkage to other data sources, and feedback to patients. Conclusions: The BRIMM research infrastructure has the potential to assess the benefits and safety of (medical) treatment in real-life situations using a unique combination of EHRs and patient-reported outcomes. As patient involvement is an important aspect of the treatment process, generating knowledge from clinical and patient perspectives is valuable for health care providers, patients, and policy makers. The developed methodology can easily be applied to other treatments and health problems