Gert P. Westert

The Prevalence of Disease Clusters in Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Diseases – A Systematic Literature Review

Background Since most clinical guidelines address single diseases, treatment of patients with multimorbidity, the co-occurrence of multiple (chronic) diseases within one person, can become complicated. Information on highly prevalent combinations of diseases can set the agenda for guideline development on multimorbidity. With this systematic review we aim to describe the prevalence of disease combinations (i.e. disease clusters) in older patients with multimorbidity, as assessed in available studies. In addition, we intend to acquire information that can be supportive in the process of multimorbidity guideline development. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for all types of studies published between January 2000 and September 2012. We included empirical studies focused on multimorbidity or comorbidity that reported prevalence rates of combinations of two or more diseases. Results Our search yielded 3070 potentially eligible articles, of which 19 articles, representing 23 observational studies, turned out to meet all our quality and inclusion criteria after full text review. These studies provided prevalence rates of 165 combinations of two diseases (i.e. disease pairs). Twenty disease pairs, concerning 12 different diseases, were described in at least 3 studies. Depression was found to be the disease that was most commonly clustered, and was paired with 8 different diseases, in the available studies. Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were found to be the second most clustered diseases, both with 6 different diseases. Prevalence rates for each disease combination varied considerably per study, but were highest for the pairs that included hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus. Conclusions Twenty disease pairs were assessed most frequently in patients with multimorbidity. These disease combinations could serve as a first priority setting towards the development of multimorbidity guidelines, starting with the diseases with the highest observed prevalence rates and those with potential interacting treatment plans.

Why do high-volume hospitals achieve better outcomes? A systematic review about intermediate factors in volume-outcome relationships

OBJECTIVE To assess the role of process and structural factors in volume-outcome relationships. DATA SOURCES Pubmed electronic database, until March 2014. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. Based on a conceptual framework, peer-reviewed publications were included that presented evidence about explanatory factors in volume-outcome associations. DATA COLLECTION Two reviewers extracted information about study design, study population, volume and outcome measures, as well as explanatory factors. Included publications were appraised for methodological quality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS After screening 1756 titles, 27 met our inclusion criteria. Three main categories of explanatory factors could be identified: 1. Compliance to evidence based processes of care (n = 7). 2. Level of specialization (n = 11). 3. Hospital level factors (n = 10). In ten studies, process and/or structural characteristics partly explained the established volume-outcome association. The median quality score of the 27 studies was 8 out of a possible 18 points. CONCLUSIONS The vast majority of volume-outcome studies do not focus on the underlying mechanism by including process and structural characteristics as explanatory factors in their analysis. The methodological quality of studies is also modest, which makes us question the available evidence for current policies to concentrate care on the basis of volume.

The impact of primary care organization on avoidable hospital admissions for diabetes in 23 countries

Abstract Objective: Diabetes is a so-called ambulatory care sensitive condition. It is assumed that by appropriate and timely primary care, hospital admissions for complications of such conditions can be avoided. This study examines whether differences between countries in diabetes-related hospitalization rates can be attributed to differences in the organization of primary care in these countries. Design: Data on characteristics of primary care systems were obtained from the QUALICOPC study that includes surveys held among general practitioners and their patients in 34 countries. Data on avoidable hospitalizations were obtained from the OECD Health Care Quality Indicator project. Negative binomial regressions were carried out to investigate the association between characteristics of primary care and diabetes-related hospitalizations. Setting: A total of 23 countries. Subjects: General practitioners and patients. Main outcome measures: Diabetes-related avoidable hospitalizations. Results: Continuity of care was associated with lower rates of diabetes-related hospitalization. Broader task profiles for general practitioners and more medical equipment in general practice were associated with higher rates of admissions for uncontrolled diabetes. Countries where patients perceive better access to care had higher rates of hospital admissions for long-term diabetes complications. There was no association between disease management programmes and rates of diabetes-related hospitalization. Hospital bed supply was strongly associated with admission rates for uncontrolled diabetes and long-term complications. Conclusions: Countries with elements of strong primary care do not necessarily have lower rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations. Hospital bed supply appeared to be a very important factor in this relationship. Apparently, it takes more than strong primary care to avoid hospitalizations. Key points Countries with elements of strong primary care do not necessarily have lower rates of diabetes-related avoidable hospitalization. Hospital bed supply is strongly associated with admission rates for uncontrolled diabetes and long-term complications. Continuity of care was associated with lower rates of diabetes-related hospitalization. Better access to care, broader task profiles for general practitioners, and more medical equipment in general practice was associated with higher rates of admissions for diabetes.

Finding the right indicators for assessing quality midwifery care

OBJECTIVE To identify a set of indicators for monitoring the quality of maternity care for low-risk women provided by primary care midwives and general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands. DESIGN A Project Group (midwives, GPs, policymakers and researchers) defined a long list of potential indicators based on the literature, national guidelines and expert opinion. This list was assessed against the AIRE (Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation) instrument criteria, resulting in a short list of draft indicators. In a two-round Delphi survey, a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders reviewed the elaborated draft indicators, rating both the relationship between indicator and quality of care and the feasibility. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of 28 midwives, 2 GPs, 3 obstetricians and 3 maternity assistants, randomly selected from different regions in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Set of quality indicators for midwifery care. RESULTS The Project Group generated a list of 115 potential indicators which was reduced to 35 using the AIRE criteria. The 35 draft indicators were discussed by a Delphi panel. In total, 26 indicators were recommended by the participants as relevant indicators of midwifery care, representing several levels of measurement. Eight structure indicators, 12 process indicators and 6 outcome indicators were addressing the various phases of midwifery care. CONCLUSIONS We identified a set of quality indicators concerning midwifery care provision in a low-risk population. Practicing maternity care providers adopted the large majority (83%) of the draft indicators proposed as a feasible set of indicators, describing the structure, process and outcome. The input from multidisciplinary experts in the process of identifying the right indicators showed to be essential in all phases of development.

Accessible and continuous primary care may help reduce rates of emergency department use. An international survey in 34 countries

BACKGROUND Part of the visits to emergency departments (EDs) is related to complaints that may well be treated in primary care. OBJECTIVES (i) To investigate how the likelihood of attending an ED is related to accessibility and continuity of primary care. (ii) To investigate the reasons for patients to visit EDs in different countries. METHODS Data were collected within the EU Seventh Framework project Quality and Costs in Primary Care (QUALICOPC) in 31 European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The data were collected between 2011 and 2013 and contain survey data from 60991 patients and 7005 GPs, within 7005 general practices. OUTCOME MEASURE whether the patient visited the ED in the previous year (yes/no). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were carried out to analyse the data. RESULTS Some 29.4% had visited the ED in the past year. Between countries, the percentages varied between 18% and 40%. ED visits show a significant and negative relation with better accessibility of primary care. Patients with a regular doctor who knows them personally were less likely to attend EDs. Only one-third of all patients who visited an ED indicated that the main reason for this was that their complaint could not be treated by a GP. CONCLUSIONS Good accessibility and continuity of primary care may well reduce ED use. In some countries, it may be worthwhile to invest in more continuous relationships between patients and GPs or to eliminate factors that hamper people to use primary care (e.g. for costs or travelling).

Prospective multicentre cohort study of patient-reported outcomes after cholecystectomy for uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

Up to 33 per cent of patients with uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis report persistent pain after cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with patient‐reported absence of abdominal pain after cholecystectomy, improved abdominal symptoms, and patient‐reported positive cholecystectomy results in a prospective cohort multicentre study.

Implementation of multiple-domain covering computerized decision support systems in primary care: a focus group study on perceived barriers

BackgroundDespite the widespread availability of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) in various healthcare settings, evidence on their uptake and effectiveness is still limited. Most barrier studies focus on CDSSs that are aimed at a limited number of decision points within selected small-scale academic settings. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived barriers to using large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care.MethodsThree focus group sessions were conducted in which 24 primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated (general practitioners, general practitioners in training and practice nurses), varying from 7 to 9 per session. In each focus group, barriers to using CDSSs were discussed using a semi-structured literature-based topic list. Focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis using the software program Atlas.ti 7.0.ResultsThree groups of barriers emerged, related to 1) the users’ knowledge of the system, 2) the users’ evaluation of features of the system (source and content, format/lay out, and functionality), and 3) the interaction of the system with external factors (patient-related and environmental factors). Commonly perceived barriers were insufficient knowledge of the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts, a lack of flexibility and learning capacity of the CDSS, a negative effect on patient communication, and the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS.ConclusionsMultiple types of barriers may hinder the use of large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Lack of knowledge of the system is an important barrier, emphasizing the importance of a proper introduction of the system to the target group. Furthermore, barriers related to a lack of integration into daily practice seem to be of primary concern, suggesting that increasing the system’s flexibility and learning capacity in order to be able to adapt the decision support to meet the varying needs of different users should be the main target of CDSS interventions.

Process evaluation of a tailored multifaceted feedback program to improve the quality of intensive care by using quality indicators

Background In multisite trials evaluating a complex quality improvement (QI) strategy the ‘same’ intervention may be implemented and adopted in different ways. Therefore, in this study we investigated the exposure to and experiences with a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving the quality of intensive care, and explore potential explanations for why the intervention was effective or not. Methods We conducted a process evaluation investigating the effect of a multifaceted improvement intervention including establishment of a local multidisciplinary QI team, educational outreach visits and periodical indicator feedback on performance measures such as intensive care unit length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration and glucose regulation. Data were collected among participants receiving the intervention. We used standardised forms to record time investment and a questionnaire and focus group to collect data on perceived barriers and satisfaction. Results The monthly time invested per QI team member ranged from 0.6 to 8.1 h. Persistent problems were: not sharing feedback with other staff; lack of normative standards and benchmarks; inadequate case-mix adjustment; lack of knowledge on how to apply the intervention for QI; and insufficient allocated time and staff. The intervention effectively targeted the lack of trust in data quality, and was reported to motivate participants to use indicators for QI activities. Conclusions Time and resource constraints, difficulties to translate feedback into effective actions and insufficient involvement of other staff members hampered the impact of the intervention. However, our study suggests that a multifaceted feedback program stimulates clinicians to use indicators as input for QI, and is a promising first step to integrating systematic QI in daily care.

Medicalisation and Overdiagnosis: What Society Does to Medicine

The concept of overdiagnosis is a dominant topic in medical literature and discussions. In research that targets overdiagnosis, medicalisation is often presented as the societal and individual burden of unnecessary medical expansion. In this way, the focus lies on the influence of medicine on society, neglecting the possible influence of society on medicine. In this perspective, we aim to provide a novel insight into the influence of society and the societal context on medicine, in particularly with regard to medicalisation and overdiagnosis.

Am I my brother's keeper? A survey of 10 healthcare professions in the Netherlands about experiences with impaired and incompetent colleagues

Background Dealing with poor individual performance of healthcare professionals is essential in patient safety management. The objective of the current study was to explore potential differences regarding experiences with impaired and incompetent colleagues between a broad range of healthcare professions. Methods A survey of 10 legally regulated professions in the Netherlands on knowledge on dealing with impaired/incompetent colleagues, experiences with such colleagues, action taken upon an impaired and incompetent colleague and reasons for not taking action. Results We approached 4348 professionals, of whom 1238 responded (28.5%). One-third of the respondents (31.3%) had an experience with an impaired or incompetent colleague in the preceding 12 months, and 84% of these reported cases concerned incompetence. Even under the extreme assumption that all non-respondents had no such experiences, our results indicate that at least 9% of the total sample had dealt with an impaired or incompetent colleague in the previous 12 months. Two-thirds of the professionals (68.6%) who had an experience reported having acted upon it. Respondents significantly less often reported to have acted (49.6% vs 79.1%, p=0.000) when the colleague was working at a different organisation. The primary reason for not taking action was that impairment/incompetence could not be proven. Conclusions Even using an extreme correction for our low response rate, at least 9% of healthcare professionals reported dealing with impaired or incompetent colleagues in the past year. Creating and clarifying reporting opportunities when confronted with an incompetent or impaired colleague should be a priority for professional organisations, policymakers and regulatory bodies.