Experiences of adult patients using primary care services in Poland – a cross-sectional study in QUALICOPC study framework

Abstract Background Patients as real healthcare system users are important observers of primary care and are able to provide reliable information about the quality of care. The aim of this study was to explore the patients’ experiences and their level of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of care provided by primary care physicians in Poland and to identify the characteristics of the patients, their physicians, and facilities associated with patient satisfaction. Methods The study is based on data from the Polish part of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study. In Poland, a nationally representative sample of 220 PC physicians and 1980 of their patients were recruited to take part in the study. As a study tool we used 3 out of 4 QUALICOPC questionnaires: “Patient Experience”, “PC Physician” and “Fieldworker” questionnaires. Results The areas of the best quality perceived by Polish PC patients are: equity, accessibility of care and quality of service. Coordination and comprehensiveness of care are evaluated relatively worse. The patients’ and their physicians’ characteristics have a limited influence on patient satisfaction and experiences with Polish primary care. Conclusions Primary health care in Poland is of good overall quality as perceived by the patients. Study participants were at most satisfied with accessibility and equity of care and less satisfied with coordination and comprehensiveness of care. Longer patient-doctor relationship and older age of patients were found as the most influential determinants of higher satisfaction. However, variables used in this study poorly explain the overall level of satisfaction. Further research is needed to identify the other determinants of patient satisfaction in the Polish population. Rural practices deserve additional attention due to highest proportions of both extremely satisfied and dissatisfied patients

The sarcopenia and physical frailty in older people: multi-component treatment strategies (SPRINTT) project: description and feasibility of a nutrition intervention in community-dwelling older Europeans

Background: The “Sarcopenia and Physical Frailty in Older People: Multicomponent Treatment Strategies” (SPRINTT) project sponsored a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with the objective to determine the effect of physical activity and nutrition intervention for prevention of mobility disability in community-dwelling frail older Europeans. We describe here the design and feasibility of the SPRINTT nutrition intervention, including techniques used by nutrition interventionists to identify those at risk of malnutrition and to carry out the nutrition intervention. Methods: SPRINTT RCT recruited older adults (≥ 70 years) from 11 European countries. Eligible participants (n = 1517) had functional limitations measured with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB score 3–9) and low muscle mass as determined by DXA scans, but were able to walk 400 m without assistance within 15 min. Participants were followed up for up to 3 years. The nutrition intervention was carried out mainly by individual nutrition counseling. Nutrition goals included achieving a daily protein intake of 1.0–1.2 g/kg body weight, energy intake of 25–30 kcal/kg of body weight/day, and serum vitamin D concentration ≥ 75 mmol/L. Survey on the method strategies and feasibility of the nutrition intervention was sent to all nutrition interventionists of the 16 SPRINTT study sites. Results: Nutrition interventionists from all study sites responded to the survey. All responders found that the SPRINTT nutrition intervention was feasible for the target population, and it was well received by the majority. The identification of participants at nutritional risk was accomplished by combining information from interviews, questionnaires, clinical and laboratory data. Although the nutrition intervention was mainly carried out using individual nutritional counselling, other assisting methods were used as appropriate. Conclusion: The SPRINTT nutrition intervention was feasible and able to adapt flexibly to varying needs of this heterogeneous population. The procedures adopted to identify older adults at risk of malnutrition and to design the appropriate intervention may serve as a model to deliver nutrition intervention for community-dwelling older people with mobility limitations