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

Psychiatric risk factors for chronic high-dose opioid prescribing: register-based cohort study

Background Chronic high-dose (CHD) prescription opioid use is a major public health concern. Although CHD opioid use has been associated with psychiatric disorders, the causality could go both ways. Some studies have already linked psychiatric disorders to an increased risk of transitioning to chronic opioid use, and longitudinal data identifying psychiatric disorders as predictors of CHD opioid use could shed further light on this issue. Aims To prospectively examine the relationship between the presence of a psychiatric disorder and subsequent development of CHD opioid use in primary care patients newly receiving opioids. Method Data were included from 137 778 primary care patients in The Netherlands. Cox regression modelling was used to examine the association between psychiatric disorders prior to a new opioid prescription and subsequent CHD opioid use (≥90 days; ≥50 mg/day oral morphine equivalents) in the subsequent 2 years. Results Of all patients receiving a new opioid prescription, 2.0% developed CHD opioid use. A psychiatric disorder before the start of an opioid prescription increased the risk of CHD opioid use (adjusted hazard ratio HR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.62–1.88), specifically psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, neurocognitive disorders and multiple co-occurring psychiatric episodes. Similarly, pharmacotherapy for psychosis, substance use disorders and mood and/or anxiety disorders increased the risk of CHD opioid use. Psychiatric polypharmacy conferred the greatest risk of developing CHD opioid use. Conclusions Psychiatric disorders increase the risk of developing CHD opioid use in patients newly receiving prescription opioids. To reduce the public health burden of CHD opioid use, careful monitoring and optimal treatment of psychiatric conditions are advised when opioid therapy is initiated

Immediate release fentanyl in general practices: Mostly off-label prescribing

AbstractBackground The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices.Objectives This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label.Methods Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed.Results This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription.Conclusion IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription

Relationship between inhaled corticosteroids adherence, short-acting beta agonists use, exacerbations and self-reported asthma control

ABSTRACT: Introduction The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) adherence, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) use, and asthma outcomes is complex. Aim To investigate these relationships in a Dutch asthma patient cohort. Methods Patients aged C 12 years diagnosed with asthma who received C 2 inhalation medication prescriptions in 2016 were selected from Nivel Primary Care Database. This database contains information about patient characteristics, GP consultations, diagnoses and prescriptions. Adherence to ICS (implementation operationalized as Continuous Measure of medication Availability), SABA use (number of prescriptions), exacerbations (operationalized as a short course oral corticosteroids with daily dose[ 20 mg) and self-reported asthma control (measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ) were computed. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to model associations between ICS adherence, SABA use, and asthma outcomes, controlling for age, sex, comorbidity, comedication and asthma severity. Results Prescription data of 13,756 patients were included. ICS adherence averaged 62%. About 31% of patients received C 2 SABA prescriptions, 13% of patients experienced C 1 exacerbations in 2016. Self-reported asthma control was available for a subsample of patients (n = 2,388); 51% reported controlled asthma (ACQ score \0.75). A higher number of SABA prescriptions was associated with a higher risk of exacerbations and a higher risk of uncontrolled asthma, but also with being adherent to ICS. ICS adherence was not clearly associated with exacerbations, whilst an ICS adherence of[ 50% was associated with controlled asthma. Conclusion Minimizing SABA use appears to be an important strategy in reducing exacerbations and improving self-reported asthma control

Understanding relationships between asthma medication use and outcomes in a SABINA primary care database study

Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma is suboptimal. Patients may rely more on their short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) to control symptoms, which may increase their risk of exacerbations and uncontrolled asthma. Our objective is to describe ICS adherence and SABA use among Dutch primary care patients with asthma, and how these are related to exacerbations and self-reported asthma control. Patients aged ≥12 years diagnosed with asthma who received ≥2 inhalation medication prescriptions in 2016 were selected from the Nivel Primary Care Database. ICS adherence (continuous measure of medication availability), SABA use (number of prescriptions), exacerbations (short courses of oral corticosteroids with daily dose ≥20 mg), and asthma control (self-reported with the Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ) were computed. Multilevel logistic regression analyses, to account for clustering of patients within practices, were used to model associations between ICS adherence, SABA use, and asthma outcomes. Prescription data of 13,756 patients were included. ICS adherence averaged 62% (SD: 32.7), 14% of patients received ≥3 SABA prescriptions, and 13% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation. Self-reported asthma control was available for 2183 patients of whom 51% reported controlled asthma (ACQ-5 score 90%). ICS adherence was not associated with exacerbations, whilst poor ICS adherence (≤50%) was associated with uncontrolled asthma. In conclusion, increased SABA use is an important and easily identifiable signal for general practitioners to discuss asthma self-management behavior with their patients

Immediate release fentanyl in general practices: Mostly off-label prescribing

BACKGROUND: The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label. METHODS: Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription. CONCLUSION: IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription