Jan van Lieshout

The Patients Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire in The Netherlands: a validation study in rural general practice

BackgroundMany patients with chronic illness receive health care in primary care settings, so a challenge is to provide well-structured chronic care in these settings. Our aim was to develop and test a Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire, a measure for patient reported structured chronic care.MethodsObservational study in 165 patients with diabetes or COPD from four general practices (72% response rate). Patients completed a written questionnaire, which included instruments for assessing chronic illness care (PACIC), evaluations of general practice (Europep), enablement (PEI), and individual characteristics.ResultsThe patients had a mean age of 68.0 years and 47% comprised of women. Twenty-two to 35% of responding patients did not provide answers to specific items in the PACIC. In 11 items the lowest answering category was used by 30% or more of the responders and in 6 items the highest answering category was used by this number of responders. Principal factor analysis identified the previously defined five domains reasonably well. Cronbachs alpha per domain varied from 0.71 to 0.83, and the intraclass coefficient from 0.66 to 0.91. Diabetes patients reported higher presence of structured chronic care for 14 out of the 20 PACIC items. The effect of patient evaluations of general practice on the PACIC score was positive (b = 0.72, p < 0.004), but the effect of patient enablement on the PACIC score was negative (b = -1.13, p < 0.000).ConclusionA translated and validated Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available. Further research on its validity is recommended.

Quality indicators for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care in nine European countries

Background With free movement of labour in Europe, European guidelines on cardiovascular care and the enlargement of the European Union to include countries with disparate health care systems, it is important to develop common quality standards for cardiovascular prevention and risk management across Europe. Methods Panels from nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Switzerland) developed quality indicators for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care. A two-stage modified Delphi process was used to identify indicators that were judged valid for necessary care. Results Forty-four out of 202 indicators (22%) were rated as valid. These focused predominantly on secondary prevention and management of established cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Less agreement on indicators of preventive care or on indicators for the management of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in patients without established disease was observed. Although 85% of the 202 potential indicators assessed were rated valid by at least one panel, lack of consensus among panels meant that the set that could be agreed upon among all panels was much smaller. Conclusion Indicators for the management of established cardiovascular disease have been developed, which can be used to measure the quality of cardiovascular care across a wide range of countries. Less agreement on how the quality of preventive care should be assessed was observed, probably caused by differences in health systems, culture and attitudes to prevention.

Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods.

BackgroundThe tailoring of implementation interventions includes the identification of the determinants of, or barriers to, healthcare practice. Different methods for identifying determinants have been used in implementation projects, but which methods are most appropriate to use is unknown.MethodsThe study was undertaken in five European countries, recommendations for a different chronic condition being addressed in each country: Germany (polypharmacy in multimorbid patients); the Netherlands (cardiovascular risk management); Norway (depression in the elderly); Poland (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—COPD); and the United Kingdom (UK) (obesity). Using samples of professionals and patients in each country, three methods were compared directly: brainstorming amongst health professionals, interviews of health professionals, and interviews of patients. The additional value of discussion structured through reference to a checklist of determinants in addition to brainstorming, and determinants identified by open questions in a questionnaire survey, were investigated separately. The questionnaire, which included closed questions derived from a checklist of determinants, was administered to samples of health professionals in each country. Determinants were classified according to whether it was likely that they would inform the design of an implementation intervention (defined as plausibly important determinants).ResultsA total of 601 determinants judged to be plausibly important were identified. An additional 609 determinants were judged to be unlikely to inform an implementation intervention, and were classified as not plausibly important. Brainstorming identified 194 of the plausibly important determinants, health professional interviews 152, patient interviews 63, and open questions 48. Structured group discussion identified 144 plausibly important determinants in addition to those already identified by brainstorming.ConclusionsSystematic methods can lead to the identification of large numbers of determinants. Tailoring will usually include a process to decide, from all the determinants that are identified, those to be addressed by implementation interventions. There is no best buy of methods to identify determinants, and a combination should be used, depending on the topic and setting. Brainstorming is a simple, low cost method that could be relevant to many tailored implementation projects.

European Practice Assessment of Cardiovascular risk management (EPA Cardio): protocol of an international observational study in primary care.

BackgroundDespite important improvements in available prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Not all high-risk patients and patients with CVD have healthy lifestyles and receive the best possible healthcare. Internationally comparative data are needed to compare cardiovascular risk management in different countries, and to examine the impact of improvement programs and others factors.ObjectivesThis study aims to provide internationally comparative data on cardiovascular risk management provided in primary care and on health-related lifestyles of patients in Europe. The study will also explore the views of doctors and patients on innovative preventive services for CVDs.Design and methodsAn observational cross-sectional study is planned. In 10 European countries, stratified samples of 36 practices per country will be recruited. In each practice, three samples of 15 patients each will be sampled: patients with coronary heart disease, patients at high risk for CVD, and healthy adult patients. The quality of cardiovascular risk management has been specified in terms of 44 performance indicators that resulted from an international Delphi-procedure with general practitioners. Most indicators are based on medical records, and some on a structured interview with a contact person of the practice. Lifestyle (smoking, physical exercise, diet) will be measured with previously validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Additional measures include practice characteristics and exposure to programs to improve cardiovascular care.

Recording of risk-factors and lifestyle counselling in patients at high risk for cardiovascular diseases in European primary care.

Background: Detection and registration of high risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) by assessing individual’s absolute cardiovascular risk is recommended in clinical guidelines. Effective interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk are available, but not optimally implemented. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of cardiovascular risk-factor recording and lifestyle counselling in high-risk patients in European primary care and to identify factors related to these clinical processes. Methods: An international cross-sectional observational study was conducted in stratified samples of primary care practices in nine European countries. Patient records were audited, using a structured data-abstraction tool based on internationally developed quality indicators. To identify factors associated with the recording, additional data were collected in a patient survey. Descriptive and multilevel data analyses were conducted. Results: In 268 general practices across Europe, 3723 records of individuals at high risk for cardiovascular diseases were audited. We found important variations in the quality of documentation of risk factors and lifestyle interventions. Recording of risk factors was best for blood pressure (92.5% of audited records, 95% CI 0.89–0.96). Lifestyle advice was recorded best for smoking cessation (65.6%, 95% CI 0.58–0.73) and worst for physical activity (38.8%, 95% CI 0.31–0.47). Of the study population, 50.6% (0.42–0.59) had elevated blood pressure levels, 59.8% (0.51–0.69) had total cholesterol >5 mmol/l, and 30.5% (0.22–0.39) were smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that recording of risk factors and counselling were related to specific patient characteristics more than to country effects. Conclusions: Analysis of different country results can be helpful for developing quality-improvement strategies.

Tailored Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice for Patients with Chronic Diseases

Background When designing interventions and policies to implement evidence based healthcare, tailoring strategies to the targeted individuals and organizations has been recommended. We aimed to gather insights into the ideas of a variety of people for implementing evidence-based practice for patients with chronic diseases, which were generated in five European countries. Methods A qualitative study in five countries (Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom) was done, involving overall 115 individuals. A purposeful sample of four categories of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, quality improvement officers, healthcare purchasers and authorities, and health researchers) was involved in group interviews in each of the countries to generate items for improving healthcare in different chronic conditions per country: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, depression in elderly people, multi-morbidity, obesity. A disease-specific standardized list of determinants of practice in these conditions provided the starting point for these groups. The content of the suggested items was categorized in a pre-defined framework of 7 domains and specific themes in the items were identified within each domain. Results The 115 individuals involved in the study generated 812 items, of which 586 addressed determinants of practice. These largely mapped onto three domains: individual health professional factors, patient factors, and professional interactions. Few items addressed guideline factors, incentives and resources, capacity of organizational change, or social, political and legal factors. The relative numbers of items in the different domains were largely similar across stakeholder categories within each of the countries. The analysis identified 29 specific themes in the suggested items across countries. Conclusion The type of suggestions for improving healthcare practice was largely similar across different stakeholder groups, mainly addressing healthcare professionals, patient factors and professional interactions. As this study is one of the first of its kind, it is important that more research is done on tailored implementation strategies.

Information exchange networks for chronic illness care in primary care practices: an observational study

BackgroundInformation exchange networks for chronic illness care may influence the uptake of innovations in patient care. Valid and feasible methods are needed to document and analyse information exchange networks in healthcare settings. This observational study aimed to examine the usefulness of methods to study information exchange networks in primary care practices, related to chronic heart failure, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.MethodsThe study was linked to a quality improvement project in the Netherlands. All health professionals in the practices were asked to complete a short questionnaire that documented their information exchange relations. Feasibility was determined in terms of response rates and reliability in terms of reciprocity of reports of receiving and providing information. For each practice, a number of network characteristics were derived for each of the chronic conditions.ResultsTen of the 21 practices in the quality improvement project agreed to participate in this network study. The response rates were high in all but one of the participating practices. For the analysis, we used data from 67 health professionals from eight practices. The agreement between receiving and providing information was, on average, 65.6%. The values for density, centralization, hierarchy, and overlap of the information exchange networks showed substantial variation between the practices as well as between the chronic conditions. The most central individual in the information exchange network could be a nurse or a physician.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to refine the measure of information networks and to test the impact of network characteristics on the uptake of innovations.

Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to improve cardiovascular risk management in primary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

AbstractBackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is an important worldwide cause of mortality. In The Netherlands, CVD is the leading cause of death for women and the second cause of death for men. Recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of CVD are not well implemented in primary care. In this study, we aim to examine the effectiveness of a tailored implementation program targeted at practice nurses to improve healthcare for patients with (high risk for) CVD.Methods/designA two-arm cluster randomized trial is planned. We offer practice nurses a tailored program to improve adherence to six specific recommendations related to blood pressure and cholesterol target values, risk profiling and lifestyle advice. Practice nurses are offered training and feedback on their motivational interviewing technique and an e-learning program on cardiovascular risk management (CVRM). They are also advised to screen for the presence and severity of depressive symptoms in patients. We also advise practice nurses to use selected E-health options (selected websites and Twitter-consult) in patients without symptoms of depression. Patients with mild depressive symptoms are referred to a physical exercise group. We recommend referring patients with major depressive symptoms for assessment and treatment of depressive symptoms if appropriate before starting CVRM. Data from 900 patients at high risk of CVD or with established CVD will be collected in 30 general practices in several geographical areas in The Netherlands. The primary outcome measure is performance of practice nurses in CVRM and reflects application of recommendations for personalized counselling and education of CVRM patients. Patients’ health-related lifestyles (physical exercise, diet and smoking status) will be measured with validated questionnaires and medical record audit will be performed to document estimated CVD risk. Additionally, we will survey and interview participating healthcare professionals for exploration of processes of change. The control practices will provide usual care.DiscussionTailored interventions can improve healthcare. An understanding of the methods to reach the improved healthcare can be improved. This research contributes a share of it. Identification of the determinants of practice and developing implementation interventions were two steps which were completed. The subsequent step was implementation of the tailored intervention program.Trial registrationName trial register: Nederlands trial registerWeb address of trial register: http://www.trialregister.nl Data of registration: 11 July 2013Number of registration:NTR4069

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with coronary heart disease in primary care: variation across countries and practices. An observational study based on quality indicators.

BackgroundPrimary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size.MethodsIn an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex.ResultsWe included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices than between countries.ConclusionsCVRM measured by quality indicators showed wide variation within and between countries and possibly leaves room for improvement in all countries involved. Few associations of performance scores with practice size were found.

Social Support and Health in Diabetes Patients: An Observational Study in Six European Countries in an Era of Austerity

Introduction Support from individual social networks, community organizations and neighborhoods is associated with better self-management and health outcomes. This international study examined the relative impact of different types of support on health and health-related behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods Observational study (using interviews and questionnaires) in a sample of 1,692 type 2 diabetes patients with 5,433 connections from Bulgaria, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Outcomes were patient-reported health status (SF-12), physical exercise (RAPA), diet and smoking (SDCSCA). Random coefficient regression models were used to examine linkages with individual networks, community organizations, and neighborhood type (deprived rural, deprived urban, or affluent urban). Results Patients had a median of 3 support connections and 34.6% participated in community organizations. Controlled for patients’ age, sex, education, income and comorbidities, large emotional support networks were associated with decrease of non-smoking (OR = 0.87). Large practical support networks were associated with worse physical and mental health (B = -0.46 and -0.27 respectively) and less physical activity (OR = 0.90). Participation in community organizations was associated with better physical and mental health (B = 1.39 and 1.22, respectively) and, in patients with low income, with more physical activity (OR = 1.53). Discussion Participation in community organizations was most consistently related to better health status. Many diabetes patients have individual support networks, but this study did not provide evidence to increase their size as a public health strategy. The consistent association between participation in community organizations and health status provides a clear target for interventions and policies.