G.P. Westert

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

BackgroundDespite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.MethodsA qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers.ResultsThe barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%).ConclusionOur study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.

Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review

Background: Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve the quality of care. In The Netherlands, considerable time and effort have been invested in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines since the 1990s. Thus far, no reviews are available on their effectiveness. The primary aim of this article was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines in improving the quality of care. Methods: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of Dutch evidence-based guidelines on both the process and structure of care and patient outcomes was conducted. The electronic databases Medline and Embase (1990–2007) and relevant scientific journals were searched. Studies were only selected if they included a controlled trial, an interrupted time series design or a before and after design. Results: A total of 20 studies were included. In 17 of 19 studies that measured the effects on the process or structure of care, significant improvements were reported. Thirteen of these studies reported improvement with respect to some of the recommendations studied. In addition, the size of the observed effects varied largely across the recommendations within guidelines. Six of nine studies that measured patient health outcomes showed significant but small improvements as a result of the use of clinical guidelines. Conclusions: This review demonstrates that Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines can be effective in improving the process and structure of care. The effects of guidelines on patient health outcomes were studied far less and data are less convincing. The high level of variation in effects across recommendations suggests that implementation strategies tailored to individual recommendations within the guideline are needed to establish relevant improvements in healthcare. Moreover, the results highlight the need for well-designed studies focusing on the level of the recommendations to determine which factors influence guideline utilisation and improved patient outcomes.

Comorbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus: impact on medical health care utilization.

BackgroundComorbidity has been shown to intensify health care utilization and to increase medical care costs for patients with diabetes. However, most studies have been focused on one health care service, mainly hospital care, or limited their analyses to one additional comorbid disease, or the data were based on self-reported questionnaires instead of health care registration data. The purpose of this study is to estimate the effects a broad spectrum of of comorbidities on the type and volume of medical health care utilization of patients with diabetes.MethodsBy linking general practice and hospital based registrations in the Netherlands, data on comorbidity and health care utilization of patients with diabetes (n = 7,499) were obtained. Comorbidity was defined as diabetes-related comorbiiabetes-related comorbidity. Multilevel regression analyses were applied to estimate the effects of comorbidity on health care utilization.ResultsOur results show that both diabetes-related and non diabetes-related comorbidity increase the use of medical care substantially in patients with diabetes. Having both diabeterelated and non diabetes-related comorbidity incrases the demand for health care even more. Differences in health care utilization patterns were observed between the comorbidities.ConclusionNon diabetes-related comorbidity increases the health care demand as much as diabetes-related comorbidity. Current single-disease approach of integrated diabetes care should be extended with additional care modules, which must be generic and include multiple diseases in order to meet the complex health care demands of patients with diabetes in the future.

The health status of the Dutch population as assessed by the EQ-6D.

This study uses the Six-Dimensional EuroQol instrument (EQ-6D) to describe the health status of the Dutch population and investigates sociodemographic differences. The subjects participated in the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, which was conducted in 2001. Five percent of all listed patients of 104 practices (99% of the Dutch are listed in a general practice) were invited for a health interview. Analyses were prepared for 9685 respondents aged 18 years or more. The EQ-6D is an extended EQ-5D (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) with a cognitive dimension. The EQ-6D construct validity was examined by comparing it with the SF-36, with good results. Most respondents reported no health problems, while 33% reported pain or discomfort. Women and elderly people generally reported more problems; only depression/anxiety was unrelated to age. Educational level was closely related to problems in all dimensions. The cognitive dimension of the EQ-6D, used for the first time in a general population, gave satisfactory results. This paper includes normative data by age and gender for both the EQ-6D and the EQ-5D. We conclude that the EQ-6D is an efficient tool for establishing the health status in the community, so that different population subgroups can be compared.

Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature

PURPOSE To review the literature concerning strategies for implementing quality indicators in hospital care, and their effectiveness in improving the quality of care. DATA SOURCES A systematic literature study was carried out using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (January 1994 to January 2008). STUDY SELECTION Hospital-based trials studying the effects of using quality indicators as a tool to improve quality of care. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted information from the studies included regarding the health care setting, type of implementation strategy and their effectiveness as a tool to improve quality of hospital care. RESULTS A total of 21 studies were included. The most frequently used implementation strategies were audit and feedback. The majority of these studies focused on care processes rather than patient outcomes. Six studies evaluated the effects of the implementation of quality indicators on patient outcomes. In four studies, quality indicator implementation was found to be ineffective, in one partially effective and in one it was found to be effective. Twenty studies focused on care processes, and most reported significant improvement with respect to part of the measured process indicators. The implementation of quality indicators in hospitals is most effective if feedback reports are given in combination with an educational implementation strategy and/or the development of a quality improvement plan. CONCLUSION Effective strategies to implement quality indicators in daily practice in order to improve hospital care do exist, but there is considerable variation in the methods used and the level of change achieved. Feedback reports combined with another implementation strategy seem to be most effective.

Current Guidelines Have Limited Applicability to Patients with Comorbid Conditions: A Systematic Analysis of Evidence-Based Guidelines

Background Guidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity. Methodology/Principal Findings We conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines. Conclusions/Significance Our study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.

An international study of hospital readmissions and related utilization in Europe and the USA.

This study concerns a comparative analysis of hospital readmission rates and related utilization in six areas, including three European countries (Finland, Scotland and the Netherlands) and three states in the USA (New York, California, Washington State). It includes a data analysis on six major causes of hospitalization across these areas. Its main focus is on two questions. (1) Do hospital readmission rates vary among the causes of hospitalization and the study populations? (2) Are hospital inpatient lengths of stay inversely related to readmissions rates? The study demonstrated that diagnoses such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) were the major causes of hospital readmission rates. The data showed that (initial) hospital stays were generally longer for patients who were readmitted than for those who were not. As a result, short stays were not associated with a higher risk of readmission, meaning that hospital readmissions were not produced by premature hospital discharges in the study population. Furthermore, the spatial variation in readmission rates within 7 versus 8-30 days showed to be identical. Finally, it was found that countries or states with relatively shorter stays showed higher readmission rates and vice versa. Since patients with readmissions in all of the areas had on average longer initial stays, this finding at country level does illustrate that there seems to be a country specific trade off between length of stay and rate of readmission. An explanation should be sought in differences in health care arrangements per area, including factors that determine length of stay levels and readmission rates in individual countries (e.g. managed care penetration, after care by GPs or home care).

Measuring mental health of the Dutch population: a comparison of the GHQ-12 and the MHI-5

BackgroudThe objective is to compare the performance of the MHI-5 and GHQ-12, both measures of general mental health. Therefore, we studied the relationship of the GHQ-12 and MHI-5 with sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported visits to general practice and mental health care, and with diagnoses made by the general practitioner.MethodsData were used from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, which was carried out in 104 practices. This study combines data from a representative sample of the Dutch population with data from general practice.ResultsThe agreement between the GHQ-12 and MHI-5 is only moderate. Both instruments are however similarly associated with demographic characteristics (except age), self-reported health care use, and psychological and social diagnoses in general practice.ConclusionsThe performance of the MHI-5 and GHQ-12 in terms of predicting mental health problems and related help seeking behaviour is similar. An advantage of the MHI-5 is that it has been widely used, not only in surveys of mental health, but also in surveys of general health and quality of life, and it is shorter. A disadvantage of the MHI-5 is that there is no cut-off point. We recommend a study to establish a valid, internationally comparable cut-off point.

Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners

BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Medical practice variations: changing the theoretical approach.

Variations in medical practice are well documented, but there has been less progress in explaining these variations. This paper discusses the existing theories and hypotheses and concludes that a change in theoretical approach is required, to one that more directly highlights the social context influencing the behaviour of doctors in their daily practice. An initial alternative model for explaining variation in practice style is presented. The paper illustrates how (combinations of) important structural factors, such as the availability of hospital resources, the way the doctor is reimbursed, the availability of patients, professional uncertainty, and the way the hospital is financed, lead to hypotheses about when different local standards of medical care emerge. It is concluded that theoretical progress in research on variations in medical practice is possible and that empirical research needs to be driven by hypotheses that emphasize the role of social contexts in the doctors decision behaviour. Some suggestions for future lines of research are outlined.