Michael J. van den Berg

Organizational aspects of primary care related to avoidable hospitalization: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Often used indicators for the quality of primary care are hospital admissions rates for conditions which are potentially avoidable by well-functioning primary care. Such hospitalizations are frequently termed as ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). OBJECTIVE We aim to investigate which characteristics of primary care organization influence avoidable hospitalization for chronic ACSCs. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase and SciSearch were searched for publications on avoidable hospitalization and primary care. Studies were included if peer reviewed, written in English, published between January 1997 and November 2013, conducted in high income countries, identified hospitalization for ACSC as outcome measures and researched organization characteristics of primary care. A risk of bias assessment was performed to assess the quality of the articles. FINDINGS A total of 1778 publications were reviewed, of which 49 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two primary care factors were found. Factors were clustered into four primary care clusters: system-level characteristics, accessibility, structural and organizational characteristics and organization of the care process. Adequate physician supply and better longitudinal continuity of care reduced avoidable hospitalizations. Furthermore, inconsistent results were found on the effectiveness of various disease management programs in reducing hospitalization rates. CONCLUSIONS Available evidence suggests that strong primary care in terms of adequate primary care physician supply and long-term relationships between primary care physicians and patients reduces hospitalizations for chronic ACSCs. There is a lack of evidence for the positive effects of many other organizational primary care aspects, such as specific disease management programs.

Changing patterns of home visiting in general practice: an analysis of electronic medical records

BackgroundIn most European countries and North America the number of home visits carried out by GPs has been decreasing sharply. This has been influenced by non-medical factors such as mobility and pressures on time. The objective of this study was to investigate changes in home visiting rates, looking at the level of diagnoses in1987 and in 2001.MethodsWe analysed routinely collected data on diagnoses in home visits and surgery consultations from electronic medical records by general practitioners. Data were used from 246,738 contacts among 124,791 patients in 103 practices in 1987, and 77,167 contacts among 58,345 patients in 80 practices in 2001. There were 246 diagnoses used. The main outcome measure was the proportion of home visits per diagnosis in 2001.ResultsWithin the period studied, the proportion of home visits decreased strongly. The size of this decrease varied across diagnoses. The relation between the proportion of home visits for a diagnosis in 1987 and the same proportion in 2001 is curvilinear (J-shaped), indicating that the decrease is weaker at the extreme points and stronger in the middle.ConclusionBy comparison with 1987, the proportion of home visits shows a distinct decline. However, the results show that this decline is not necessarily a problem. The finding that this decline varied mainly between diagnoses for which home visits are not always urgent, shows that medical considerations still play an important role in the decision about whether or not to carry out a home visit.

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.

Impact of remuneration on guideline adherence : Empirical evidence in general practice

Abstract Background and objective. Changes in the Dutch GP remuneration system provided the opportunity to study the effects of changes in financial incentives on the quality of care. Separate remuneration systems for publicly insured patients (capitation) and privately insured patients (fee-for-service) were replaced by a combined system of capitation and fee-for-service for all in 2006. The effects of these changes on the quality of care in terms of guideline adherence were investigated. Design and setting. A longitudinal study from 2002 to 2009 using data from patient electronic medical records in general practice. A multilevel (patient and practice) approach was applied to study the effect of changes in the remuneration system on guideline adherence. Subjects. 21 421 to 39 828 patients from 32 to 52 general practices (dynamic panel of GPs). Main outcome measures. Sixteen guideline adherence indicators on prescriptions and referrals for acute and chronic conditions. Results. Guideline adherence increased between 2002 and 2008 by 7% for (formerly) publicly insured patients and 10% for (formerly) privately insured patients. In general, no significant differences in the trends for guideline adherence were found between privately and publicly insured patients, indicating the absence of an effect of the remuneration system on guideline adherence. Adherence to guidelines involving more time investment in terms of follow-up contacts was affected by changes in the remuneration system. For publicly insured patients, GPs showed a higher trend for guideline adherence for guidelines involving more time investment in terms of follow-up contacts compared with privately insured patients. Conclusion. The change in the remuneration system had a limited impact on guideline adherence.

Trends towards stronger primary care in three western European countries; 2006-2012.

BackgroundStrong primary care systems are believed to have an important role in dealing with healthcare challenges. Strengthening primary care systems is therefore a common policy goal for many countries. This study aims to investigate whether the Netherlands, the UK and Germany have strengthened their primary care systems in 2006-2012.MethodFor this cross-sectional study, data from the International Health Policy surveys of the Commonwealth Fund in 2006, 2009 and 2012 were used. The surveys represent the experiences and perspectives of primary care physicians with their primary care system. The changes over time were researched in three areas: organization of primary care processes, use of IT in primary care and use of benchmarking and financial incentives for performance improvement.ResultsRegarding organization of primary care processes, in all countries the use of supporting personnel in general practice increased, but at the same time practice accessibility decreased. IT services were most advanced in the UK. The UK and the Netherlands showed increased use of performance feedback information. German GPs were least satisfied with how their system works across the 2006-2012 timeframe.ConclusionAll three countries show trends towards stronger primary care systems, although in different areas. Coordination and comprehensive care through the assignment of assisting personnel and use of disease management programs improved in all countries. In the Netherlands and the UK, informational continuity is in part ensured through better IT services. All countries showed increasing difficulties upholding primary care accessibility.

Incorporating shared savings programs into primary care: from theory to practice

BackgroundIn several countries, health care policies gear toward strengthening the position of primary care physicians. Primary care physicians are increasingly expected to take accountability for overall spending and quality. Yet traditional models of paying physicians do not provide adequate incentives for taking on this new role. Under a so-called shared savings program physicians are instead incentivized to take accountability for spending and quality, as the program lets them share in cost savings when quality targets are met. We provide a structured approach to designing a shared savings program for primary care, and apply this approach to the design of a shared savings program for a Dutch chain of primary care providers, which is currently being piloted.MethodsBased on the literature, we defined five building blocks of shared savings models that encompass the definition of the scope of the program, the calculation of health care expenditures, the construction of a savings benchmark, the assessment of savings and the rules and conditions under which savings are shared. We apply insights from a variety of literatures to assess the relative merits of alternative design choices within these building blocks. The shared savings program uses an econometric model of provider expenditures as an input to calculating a casemix-corrected benchmark.ResultsThe minimization of risk and uncertainty for both payer and provider is pertinent to the design of a shared savings program. In that respect, the primary care setting provides a number of unique opportunities for achieving cost and quality targets. Accountability can more readily be assumed due to the relatively long-lasting relationships between primary care physicians and patients. A stable population furthermore improves the confidence with which savings can be attributed to changes in population management. Challenges arise from the institutional context. The Dutch health care system has a fragmented structure and providers are typically small in size.ConclusionShared savings programs fit the concept of enhanced primary care. Incorporating a shared savings program into existing payment models could therefore contribute to the financial sustainability of this organizational form.

Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?

Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs’ role to match patients’ demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs’ perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients’ preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients’ referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs’ referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs’ perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs’ responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM– 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM—however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP’s value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Kwaliteitsinformatie: John deWolf heeft zo zijn eigen indicatoren

Zorgverzekeraars moeten de handen ineen slaan met cliëntenorganisaties en samen de lead nemen in het transparant maken van kwaliteit. Zorginhoudelijke uitkomsten en cliëntervaringen met de zorg dienen daarbij centraal te staan. Zowel op het niveau van de zorgorganisatie als van de individuele zorgverlener.