General practitioners' satisfaction with and attitudes to out-of-hours services

BACKGROUND: In recent years, Dutch general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours service has been reorganised into large-scale GP cooperatives. Until now little is known about GPs' experiences with working at these cooperatives for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into GPs' satisfaction with working at GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care in separated and integrated cooperatives. METHODS: A GP cooperative separate from the hospital Accident and Emergency (A&E) department, and a GP cooperative integrated within the A&E department of another hospital. Both cooperatives are situated in adjacent geographic regions in the South of the Netherlands. One hundred GPs were interviewed by telephone; fifty GPs working at the separated GP cooperative and fifty GPs from the integrated GP cooperative. Opinions on different aspects of GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care were measured, and regression analysis was performed to investigate if these could be related to GP satisfaction with out-of-hours care organisation. RESULTS: GPs from the separated model were more satisfied with the organisation of out-of-hours care than GPs from the integrated model (70 vs. 60 on a scale score from 0 to 100; P = 0.020). Satisfaction about out-of-hours care organisation was related to opinions on workload, guarantee of gatekeeper function, and attitude towards out-of-hours care as being an essential part of general practice. Cooperation with medical specialists was much more appreciated at the integrated model (77 vs. 48; P < 0.001) versus the separated model. CONCLUSION: GPs in this study appear to be generally satisfied with the organisation of GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care. Furthermore, GPs working at the separated cooperative seem to be more satisfied compared to GPs working at the integrated cooperative

Testing the proficiency to distinguish locations with elevated plantar pressure within and between professional groups of foot therapists

BACKGROUND: Identification of locations with elevated plantar pressures is important in daily foot care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, metatarsalgia and diabetes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the proficiency of podiatrists, pedorthists and orthotists, to distinguish locations with elevated plantar pressure in patients with metatarsalgia. METHODS: Ten podiatrists, ten pedorthists and ten orthotists working in The Netherlands were asked to identify locations with excessively high plantar pressure in three patients with forefoot complaints. Therapists were instructed to examine the patients according to the methods used in their everyday clinical practice. Regions could be marked through hatching an illustration of a plantar aspect. A pressure sensitive platform was used to quantify the dynamic bare foot plantar pressures and was considered as 'Gold Standard' (GS). A pressure higher than 700 kPa was used as cut-off criterion for categorizing peak pressure into elevated or non-elevated pressure. This was done for both patient's feet and six separate forefoot regions: big toe and metatarsal one to five. Data were analysed by a mixed-model ANOVA and Generalizability Theory. RESULTS: The proportions elevated/non-elevated pressure regions, based on clinical ratings of the therapists, show important discrepancies with the criterion values obtained through quantitative plantar pressure measurement. In general, plantar pressures in the big toe region were underrated and those in the metatarsal regions were overrated. The estimated method agreement on clinical judgement of plantar pressures with the GS was below an acceptable level: i.e. all intraclass correlation coefficient's equal or smaller than .60. The inter-observer agreement for each discipline demonstrated worrisome results: all below .18. The estimated mutual agreements showed that there was virtually no mutual agreement between the professional groups studied. CONCLUSION: Identification of elevated plantar pressure through clinical evaluation is difficult, insufficient and may be potentially harmful. The process of clinical plantar pressure screening has to be re-evaluated. The results of this study point towards the merit of quantitative plantar pressure measurement for clinical practice

Comparison of foot orthoses made by podiatrists, pedorthists and orthotists regarding plantar pressure reduction in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: There is a need for evidence of clinical effectiveness of foot orthosis therapy. This study evaluated the effect of foot orthoses made by ten podiatrists, ten pedorthists and eleven orthotists on plantar pressure and walking convenience for three patients with metatarsalgia. Aims were to assess differences and variability between and within the disciplines. The relationship between the importance of pressure reduction and the effect on peak pressure was also evaluated. METHODS: Each therapist examined all three patients and was asked to rate the 'importance of pressure reduction' through a visual analogue scale. The orthoses were evaluated twice in two sessions while the patient walked on a treadmill. Plantar pressures were recorded with an in-sole measuring system. Patients scored walking convenience per orthosis. The effects of the orthoses on peak pressure reduction were calculated for the whole plantar surface of the forefoot and six regions: big toe and metatarsal one to five. RESULTS: Within each discipline there was an extensive variation in construction of the orthoses and achieved peak pressure reductions. Pedorthists and orthotists achieved greater maximal peak pressure reductions calculated over the whole forefoot than podiatrists: 960, 1020 and 750 kPa, respectively (p < .001). This was also true for the effect in the regions with the highest baseline peak pressures and walking convenience rated by patients A and B. There was a weak relationship between the 'importance of pressure reduction' and the achieved pressure reduction for orthotists, but no relationship for podiatrists and pedorthotists. CONCLUSION: The large variation for various aspects of foot orthoses therapy raises questions about a consistent use of concepts for pressures management within the professional groups

Prediction of peak pressure from clinical and radiological measurements in patients with diabetes

Abstract Background Various structural and functional factors of foot function have been associated with high local plantar pressures. The therapist focuses on these features which are thought to be responsible for plantar ulceration in patients with diabetes. Risk assessment of the diabetic foot would be made easier if locally elevated plantar pressure could be indicated with a minimum set of clinical measures. Methods Ninety three patients were evaluated through vascular, orthopaedic, neurological and radiological assessment. A pressure platform was used to quantify the barefoot peak pressure for six forefoot regions: big toe (BT) and metatarsals one (MT-1) to five (MT-5). Stepwise regression modelling was performed to determine which set of the clinical and radiological measures explained most variability in local barefoot plantar peak pressure in each of the six forefoot regions. Comprehensive models were computed with independent variables from the clinical and radiological measurements. The difference between the actual plantar pressure and the predicted value was examined through Bland-Altman analysis. Results Forefoot pressures were significant higher in patients with neuropathy, compared to patients without neuropathy for the whole forefoot, the MT-1 region and the MT-5 region (respectively 138 kPa, 173 kPa and 88 kPa higher: mean difference). The clinical models explained up to 39 percent of the variance in local peak pressures. Callus formation and toe deformity were identified as relevant clinical predictors for all forefoot regions. Regression models with radiological variables explained about 26 percent of the variance in local peak pressures. For most regions the combination of clinical and radiological variables resulted in a higher explained variance. The Bland and Altman analysis showed a major discrepancy between the predicted and the actual peak pressure values. Conclusion At best, clinical and radiological measurements could only explain about 34 percent of the variance in local barefoot peak pressure in this population of diabetic patients. The prediction models constructed with linear regression are not useful in clinical practice because of considerable underestimation of high plantar pressure values. Identification of elevated plantar pressure without equipment for quantification of plantar pressure is inadequate. The use of quantitative plantar pressure measurement for diabetic foot screening is therefore advocated.</p

Pre-intermediate care unit (IMC) and IMC period flowchart of intensive care unit (ICU) patients

GW, general ward; LOS, length of stay; N*, number of admissions; N**, number of readmissions.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Changes in hospital costs after introducing an intermediate care unit: a comparative observational study"</p><p>http://ccforum.com/content/12/3/R68</p><p>Critical Care 2008;12(3):R68-R68.</p><p>Published online 15 May 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2481456.</p><p></p