Reorganising dermatology care:predictors of the substitution of secondary care with primary care

Background: The substitution of healthcare is a way to control rising healthcare costs. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention of the Dutch ‘Blue Care’ pioneer site aims to achieve this feat by facilitating consultations with medical specialists in the primary care setting. One of the specialties involved is dermatology. This study explores referral decisions following dermatology care in PC+ and the influence of predictive patient and consultation characteristics on this decision. Methods: This retrospective study used clinical data of patients who received dermatology care in PC+ between January 2015 and March 2017. The referral decision following PC+, (i.e., referral back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care) was the primary outcome. Stepwise logistic regression modelling was used to describe variations in the referral decisions following PC+, with patient age and gender, number of PC+ consultations, patient diagnosis and treatment specialist as the predicting factors. Results: A total of 2952 patients visited PC+ for dermatology care. Of those patients with a registered referral, 80.2% (N = 2254) were referred back to the GP, and 19.8% (N = 558) were referred to outpatient hospital care. In the multivariable model, only the treating specialist and patient’s diagnosis independently influenced the referral decisions following PC+. Conclusion: The aim of PC+ is to reduce the number of referrals to outpatient hospital care. According to the results, the treating specialist and patient diagnosis influence referral decisions. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to discuss and improve specialist and patient profiles for PC+ to further optimise the effectiveness of the initiative

Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation:What are the lessons learned?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Integration of care is lacking for chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg, a transmural health care network, has been designed to provide integrated rehabilitation care from a biopsychosocial perspective to improve patients’ levels of functioning. This feasibility study aims to provide insight into barriers and facilitators for the development, implementation, and transferability. METHODS: This study was conducted with a three-phase iterative and incremental design from October 2017 to October 2018. The network comprises two rehabilitation practices, and three local primary care networks, with a general practitioner together with, a mental health practice nurse, and a physiotherapist or exercise therapist. These stakeholders with a random sample of participating patients took part in evaluations, consisting of interviews, focus groups, and observations. Field notes and observations were recorded during meetings. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. Results were used to refine the next phase. RESULTS: According to health care professionals, guidelines and treatment protocols facilitate consistency and transparency in collaboration, biopsychosocial language, and treatment. One mentioned barrier is the stigmatization of chronic pain by the general population. In regular care, approaches are often more biomedical than biopsychosocial, causing patients to resist participating. The current organization of health care acts as a barrier, complicating implementation between and within practices. Health care professionals were enthusiastic about the iterative, bottom-up development. A critical mass of participating organizations is needed for proper implementation. CONCLUSION: Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg is feasible in daily practice if barriers are overcome and facilitators of development, implementation, and transferability are promoted. These findings will be used to refine Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg. A large-scale process and effect evaluation will be performed. Our implementation strategies and results may assist other health care organizations aspiring to implement a transmural network using a similar model. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Registration number: NTR6654 or https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR6654

Economic evaluation of nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing long-term psychosocial outcome: a comparison to care-as-usual

Objective To examine the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing psychosocial outcome at 6 months post stroke, compared with care-as-usual.Design Economic evaluation within a comparative effectiveness research design.Setting Primary care (2016–2017) and community settings (2011–2013) in the Netherlands.Participants Persons who suffered from ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, or a transient ischaemic attack and were discharged home after visiting the emergency department, hospitalisation or inpatient rehabilitation.Interventions Nurse-led stroke aftercare at 6 months post stroke addressing psychosocial functioning by providing screening, psycho-education, emotional support and referral to specialist care when needed. Care-as-usual concerned routine follow-up care including secondary prevention programmes and a consultation with the neurologist at 6 weeks post stroke.Primary and secondary outcome measures Main outcome measure of cost-effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated by the quality of life measured by the five-dimensional, three-level EuroQol. Costs were assessed using a cost-questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and social participation (Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation) restrictions subscale.Results Health outcomes were significantly better in stroke aftercare for QALYs (Δ=0.05; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) and social participation (Δ=4.91; 95% CI 1.89 to 7.93) compared with care-as-usual. Total societal costs were €1208 higher in stroke aftercare than in care-as-usual (95% CI −€3881 to €6057). Healthcare costs were in total €1208 higher in stroke aftercare than in care-as-usual (95% CI −€3881 to €6057). Average costs of stroke aftercare were €91 (SD=€3.20) per person. Base case cost-effectiveness analyses showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 679 per QALY gained. Probability of stroke aftercare being cost-effective was 64% on a €50 000 willingness-to-pay level.Conclusions Nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing psychosocial functioning showed to be a low-cost intervention and is likely to be a cost-effective addition to care-as-usual. It plays an important role by screening and addressing psychosocial problem, not covered by usual care

Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: What are the lessons learned?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Integration of care is lacking for chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg, a transmural health care network, has been designed to provide integrated rehabilitation care from a biopsychosocial perspective to improve patients' levels of functioning. This feasibility study aims to provide insight into barriers and facilitators for the development, implementation, and transferability. METHODS: This study was conducted with a three-phase iterative and incremental design from October 2017 to October 2018. The network comprises two rehabilitation practices, and three local primary care networks, with a general practitioner together with, a mental health practice nurse, and a physiotherapist or exercise therapist. These stakeholders with a random sample of participating patients took part in evaluations, consisting of interviews, focus groups, and observations. Field notes and observations were recorded during meetings. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. Results were used to refine the next phase. RESULTS: According to health care professionals, guidelines and treatment protocols facilitate consistency and transparency in collaboration, biopsychosocial language, and treatment. One mentioned barrier is the stigmatization of chronic pain by the general population. In regular care, approaches are often more biomedical than biopsychosocial, causing patients to resist participating. The current organization of health care acts as a barrier, complicating implementation between and within practices. Health care professionals were enthusiastic about the iterative, bottom-up development. A critical mass of participating organizations is needed for proper implementation. CONCLUSION: Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg is feasible in daily practice if barriers are overcome and facilitators of development, implementation, and transferability are promoted. These findings will be used to refine Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg. A large-scale process and effect evaluation will be performed. Our implementation strategies and results may assist other health care organizations aspiring to implement a transmural network using a similar model. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Registration number: NTR6654 or https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR6654