Perceived barriers for treatment of chronic heart failure in general practice; are they affecting performance?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine to what extent barriers perceived by general practitioners (GPs) for prescribing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients are related to underuse and underdosing of these drugs in actual practice. METHODS: Barriers were assessed with a semi-structured questionnaire. Prescribing data were extracted from GPs' computerised medical records for a random sample of their CHF patients. Relations between barriers and prescribing behaviour were assessed by means of Spearman rank correlation and multivariate regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs prescribed ACE-I to 45% of their patients and had previously initiated such treatment in an additional 3.5%, in an average standardised dose of 13.5 mg. They perceived a median of four barriers in prescribing ACE-I or optimising ACE-I dose. Many GPs found it difficult to change treatment initiated by a cardiologist. Furthermore, initiating ACE-I in patients already using a diuretic or stable on their current medication was perceived as barrier. Titrating the ACE-I dose was seen as difficult by more than half of the GPs. No significant relationships could be found between the barriers perceived and actual ACE-I prescribing. Regarding ACE-I dosing, the few GPs who did not agree that the ACE-I should be as high as possible prescribed higher ACE-I doses. CONCLUSION: Variation between GPs in prescribing ACE-I for CHF cannot be explained by differences in the barriers they perceive. Tailor-made interventions targeting only those doctors that perceive a specific barrier will therefore not be an efficient approach to improve quality of care

The effects of involving a nurse practitioner in primary care for adult patients with urinary incontinence: The PromoCon study (Promoting Continence)

Contains fulltext : 70765.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects approximately 5% (800.000) of the Dutch population. Guidelines recommend pelvic floor muscle/bladder training for most patients. Unfortunately, general practitioners use this training only incidentally, but prescribe incontinence pads. Over 50% of patients get such pads, costing 160 million euros each year. Due to ageing of the population a further increase of expenses is expected. Several national reports recommend to involve nurse specialists to support general practitioners and improve patient care. The main objective of our study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists in primary care for urinary incontinence. This paper describes the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: In a pragmatic prospective multi centre two-armed randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands the availability and involvement for the general practitioners of a nurse specialist will be compared with usual care. All consecutive patients consulting their general practitioner within 1 year for urinary incontinence and patients already diagnosed with urinary incontinence are eligible. Included patients will be followed for 12 months.Primary outcome is severity of urinary incontinence (measured with the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF)). Based on ICIQ-UI SF outcome data the number of patients needed to include is 350. For the economic evaluation quality of life and costs will be measured alongside the clinical trial. For the longer term extrapolation of the economic evaluation a Markov modelling approach will be used. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first trial on care for patients with urinary incontinence in primary care that includes a full economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness modelling exercise from the societal perspective. If this intervention proves to be effective and cost-effective, implementation of this intervention is considered and anticipated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62722772

Adherence to professional guidelines for patients with urinary incontinence by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

Contains fulltext : 69554.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common problem, affecting quality of life and leading to high costs. There is doubt about the use of clinical practice guidelines on urinary incontinence in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess adherence levels and reasons for (non)adherence to the Guideline on Urinary Incontinence of the Dutch College of General Practitioners. Design, setting and participants A postal survey among Dutch general practitioners (GPs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adherence of GPs to the guideline. RESULTS: We analysed 264 questionnaires. Almost all GPs adhered to the guideline when diagnosing the type of urinary incontinence. A bladder diary is not often used (35%). Adherence to therapeutic procedures was only high for mild/moderate stress urinary incontinence: most GPs (82.6%) used adequate advice on bladder retraining and pelvic floor muscle training. One out of four GPs agreed that adhering to the guideline is difficult, mainly owing to lack of time, staff, diagnostic tools, competences to provide this care and low motivation of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GPs follow the guideline only partially: compliance with diagnostic advices is fairly good; compliance with treatment advices is low. Further research should focus on solutions how to support GPs to tackle major barriers to facilitate the adherence to guidelines (substitution of tasks to specialized nurses, reducing the threshold for referral and concentrating expertise in integrated continence care services)

Cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists for adult patients with urinary incontinence in primary care compared to care-as-usual: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Item does not contain fulltextAIMS: To determine the 12-month, societal cost-effectiveness of involving urinary incontinence (UI) nurse specialists in primary care compared to care-as-usual by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: From 2005 until 2008 an economic evaluation was performed alongside a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing UI patients receiving care by nurse specialists with patients receiving care-as-usual by GPs in the Netherlands. One hundred eighty-six adult patients with stress, urgency, or mixed UI were randomly allocated to the intervention and 198 to care-as-usual; they were followed for 1 year. Main outcome measures were Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY(societal) ) based on societal preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol-5D), QALY(patient) based on patient preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol VAS), and Incontinence Severity weighted Life Year (ISLY) based on patient-reported severity and impact of UI (ICIQ-UI SF). Health care resource use, patient and family costs, and productivity costs were assessed. Data were collected by three monthly questionnaires. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrap simulation, and the expected value of perfect information was calculated (EVPI). RESULTS: Compared to care-as-usual, nurse specialist involvement costs euro 16,742/QALY(societal) gained. Both QALY(patient) and ISLY yield slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness results. At a threshold of euro 40,000/QALY(societal,) the probability that the intervention is cost-effective is 58%. The EVPI amounts to euro 78 million. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we recommend adopting the nurse specialist intervention in primary care, while conducting more research through careful monitoring of the effectiveness and costs of the intervention in routine practice.1 april 201

Persisting rise in referrals during labor in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 128459.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Background: There are concerns about the Dutch maternity care system, characterized by a strict role division between primary and secondary care. The objective of this study was to describe trends in referrals and in perinatal outcomes among labors that started in primary midwife-led care. Methods: We performed a descriptive study of all 789,795 labors that started in primary midwife-led care during 2000 to 2008 in The Netherlands. Referrals to obstetrician-led care or pediatrician were classified as urgent or nonurgent. Perinatal safety was described by perinatal mortality (intrapartum or neonatal 0–7 days), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 0–7 days, and Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes. Results: The proportion of referrals during labor or after birth declined from 52.6 to 42.6 percent for nulliparous women and from 83.2 to 76.7 percent for multiparous women. Especially nonurgent referrals during the first stage increased, for nulliparous women from 28.7 to 40.7 percent and for multiparous women from 10.5 to 16.5 percent. Referrals were less frequent in planned home births. Perinatal mortality was 0.9 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 0.6 per thousand for multiparous women. A low Apgar score was registered in 8.6 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 4.1 per thousand for multiparous women. Conclusions: There was a considerable rise in nonurgent referrals to obstetrician-led care in primary midwife-led care during labor. Perinatal safety did not improve significantly over time. The persisting rise in referrals challenges the sustainability of the current strict role division between primary and secondary maternity care in The Netherlands.10 p