Dominique Paulus

Substantial use of primary health care by prisoners: epidemiological description and possible explanations.

Objectives: To describe the use of primary care services by a prisoner population so as to understand the great number of demands and therefore to plan services oriented to the specific needs of these patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study of a sample of prisoners’ medical records. Setting: All Belgian prisons (nu200a=u200a33). Patients: 513 patients over a total of 182 patient years, 3328 gneral practitioner (GP) contacts, 3655 reasons for encounter. Main results: Prisoners consulted the GP 17 times a year on average (95%CI 15 to 19.4). It is 3.8 times more than a demographically equivalent population in the community. The most common reasons for encounter were administrative procedures (22%) followed by psychological (13.1%), respiratory (12.9%), digestive (12.5%), musculoskeletal (12%), and skin problems (7.7%). Psychological reasons for consultations (nu200a=u200a481) involved mainly (71%) feeling anxious, sleep disturbance, and prescription of psychoactive drugs. Many other visits concerned common problems that in other circumstances would not require any physician intervention. Conclusion: The most probable explanations for the substantial use of primary care in prison are the health status (many similarities noted between health problems at the admission and reasons for consultations during the prison term: mental health problems and health problems related to drug misuse), lack of access to informal health services (many contacts for common problems), prison rules (many consultations for administrative procedures), and mental health problems related to the difficulties of life in prison.

Stakeholders’ perception on the organization of chronic care: a SWOT analysis to draft avenues for health care reforms

BackgroundAdequate care for individuals living with chronic illnesses calls for a healthcare system redesign, moving from acute, disease-centered to patient-centered models. The aim of this study was to identify Belgian stakeholders’ perceptions on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the healthcare system for people with chronic diseases in Belgium.MethodsFour focus groups were held with stakeholders from the micro and meso level, in addition to two interviews with stakeholders who could not attend the focus group sessions. Data collection and the discussion were based on the Chronic Care model. Thematic analysis of the transcripts allowed for the identification of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current health care system with focus on chronic care.ResultsInformants stressed the overall good quality of the acute health care system and the level of reimbursement of care as an important strength of the current system. In contrast, the lack of integration of care was identified as one of the biggest weaknesses of today’s health care system, along with the unclear definitions of the roles and functions of health professionals involved in care processes. Patient education to support self-management exists for patients with diabetes and/or terminal kidney failure but not for those living with other or multiple chronic conditions. The current overall fee-for-service system is a barrier to integrated care, as are the lack of incentives for integrated care. Attending multidisciplinary meetings, for example, is underfinanced to date. Finally, clinical information systems lack interoperability, which further impedes the information flow across settings and disciplines.ConclusionOur study’s methods allowed for the identification of problematic domains in the health system for people living with chronic conditions. These findings provided useful insights surrounding perceived priorities. This methodology may inspire other countries faced with the challenge of drafting reforms to tackle the issue of chronic care.

Can we import quality tools? a feasibility study of European practice assessment in a country with less organised general practice

BackgroundQuality is on the agenda of European general practice (GP). European researchers have, in collaboration, developed tools to assess quality of GPs. In this feasibility study, we tested the European Practice Assessment (EPA) in a one-off project in Belgium, where general practice has a low level of GP organisation.MethodsA framework for feasibility analysis included describing the recruiting of participants, a brief telephone study survey among non-responders, organisational and logistic problems. Using field notes and focus groups, we studied the participants opinions.ResultsIn this study, only 36 of 1000 invited practices agreed to participate. Co-ordination, administrative work, practice visits and organisational problems required several days per practice. The researchers further encountered technical problems, for instance when entering the data and uploading to the web-based server. In subsequent qualitative analysis using two focus groups, most participant GPs expressed a positive feeling after the EPA procedure. In the short period of follow-up, only a few GPs reported improvements after the visit. The participant GPs suggested that follow-up and coaching would probably facilitate the implementation of changes.ConclusionThis feasibility study shows that prior interest in EPA is low in the GP community. We encountered a number of logistic and organisational problems. It proved attractive to participants, but it can be augmented by coaching of participants in more than a one-off project to identify and achieve targets for quality improvement. In the absence of commitment of the government, a network of universities and one scientific organisation will offer EPA as a service to training practices.

Development of a national position paper for chronic care: example of Belgium.

The management of chronic diseases is a prime challenge of most 21st century health care systems. Many Western countries have invested heavily in care plans oriented towards specific conditions and diseases, such as dementia and cancer. The major downside of this narrowly focused approach is that treatment of multimorbidity is ignored. This paper describes the development and main stance of a national position that proposes streamlined reforms of the Belgian health care system to improve care for patients with multiple chronic diseases. We used a combination of methods to develop this stance: literature review and stakeholders consultation. The latter identified areas for improvement: efficiency of the health care system, coordination of care, investments in human care resources, informal caregivers support, better accessibility, and changes in the financial payment system. The position paper list 20 recommendations that are translated into about 50 action points to reform the health care system. Chronic care tailored to the patients needs, including implementation of multidisciplinary teamwork, new functions, task delegation in primary care, and empowerment of the patient and informal caregivers are some major areas discussed. In addition, improved support, revised payment mechanisms, and setting up a quality system, along with the tailoring of patient care, can all facilitate delivery of high quality care in patients with chronic comorbidities.

The view of severely burned patients and healthcare professionals on the blind spots in the aftercare process: a qualitative study

BackgroundIn most Western countries burn centres have been developed to provide acute and critical care for patients with severe burn injuries. Nowadays, those patients have a realistic chance of survival. However severe burn injuries do have a devastating effect on all aspects of a person’s life. Therefore a well-organized and specialized aftercare system is needed to enable burn patients to live with a major bodily change. The aim of this study is to identify the problems and unmet care needs of patients with severe burn injuries throughout the aftercare process, both from patient and health care professional perspectives in Belgium.MethodsBy means of face-to-face interviews (nu2009=u200940) with individual patients, responsible physicians and patient organizations, current experiences with the aftercare process were explored. Additionally, allied healthcare professionals (nu2009=u200917) were interviewed in focus groups.ResultsBelgian burn patients indicate they would benefit from a more integrated aftercare process. Quality of care is often not structurally embedded, but depends on the good intentions of local health professionals. Most burn centres do not have a written discharge protocol including an individual patient-centred care plan, accessible to all caregivers involved. Patients reported discontinuity of care: nurses working at general wards or rehabilitation units are not specifically trained for burn injuries, which sometimes leads to mistakes or contradictory information transmission. Also professionals providing home care are often not trained for the care of burn injuries. Some have to be instructed by the patient, others go to the burn centre to learn the right skills. Finally, patients themselves underestimate the chronic character of burn injuries, especially at the beginning of the care process.ConclusionsThe variability in aftercare processes and structures, as well as the failure to implement locally developed best-practices on a wider scale emphasize the need for a comprehensive network, which can initiate transversal activities such as the development of discharge protocols, common guidelines, and quality criteria.