T. van der Weijden

Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare

Although many clinicians feel they already use shared decision making, research shows a perception-reality gap. A M Stiggelbout and colleagues discuss why it is important and highlight some best practices

Designing a quality improvement intervention: a systematic approach

Most quality improvement or change management interventions are currently designed intuitively and their results are often disappointing. While improving the effectiveness of interventions requires systematic development, no specific methodology for composing intervention strategies and programmes is available. This paper describes the methodology of systematically designing quality of care improvement interventions, including problem analysis, intervention design and pretests. Several theories on quality improvement and change management are integrated and valuable materials from health promotion are added. One method of health promotion—intervention mapping—is introduced and applied. It describes the translation of knowledge about barriers to and facilitators of change into a concrete intervention programme. Systematic development of interventions, although time consuming, appears to be worthwhile. Decisions that have to be made during the design process of a quality improvement intervention are visualised, allowing them to serve as a starting point for a systematic evaluation of the intervention.

Much variety and little evidence: a description of guidelines for doctor-patient communication

Aim  To explore the quality of the content of communication skills training programmes, we analysed and assessed guidelines for doctor–patient communication used in communication programmes for general practitioner (GP) trainees.

Feasibility and acceptability of a computerised system with automated reminders for prescribing behaviour in primary care

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a computer reminder system (CRS) to improve prescribing behaviour in general practice and to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a reminder system. One group of GPs received reminders on cholesterol lowering drugs, the other group on antibiotics, asthma and COPD drugs. METHODS Process evaluation of the computer reminder system being used by 53 GPs in 20 practices, by means of an analysis of the research database of the CRS. In addition, a questionnaire and semi-structured face-to-face interview were conducted with all GP practices, two project leaders, and one technical consultant. RESULTS The strategy was largely carried out as planned, although the development period for the CRS had to be extended. Nine percent of the GPs dropped out. We found a significant learning curve without extinguishing effect (p=0.03) for the antibiotics reminders. The questionnaire showed that, in general, GPs were satisfied with the user-friendliness and the content of the different types of reminders, but less satisfied with certain specific technical performance issues of the system. The GPs reported mixed feelings towards the CRS in the interviews. They were generally positive about the guidelines themselves, but negative regarding to the organisational context and the method of implementing the CRS. GPs stated that they sometimes manipulated the system to bypass reminders. Interviews with the project leaders and technical consultant revealed barriers to cooperation and miscommunication between the different parties, and technical problems with multiple updates of the GP information system and the operating system. CONCLUSIONS This process evaluation demonstrated that the implementation of the CRS was mainly carried out as planned, but the subjective experience of working with the CRS was not only positive. Participating GPs had mixed feelings, and quite a number of barriers need to be addressed to facilitate large-scale implementation of the CRS. Costs cannot be neglected, so it is important to analyse the balance between costs and effects.

Sustainability of professionals’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care: a systematic review

Objectives To evaluate (1) the state of the art in sustainability research and (2) the outcomes of professionals’ adherence to guideline recommendations in medical practice. Design Systematic review. Data sources Searches were conducted until August 2015 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN) library. A snowball strategy, in which reference sections of other reviews and of included papers were searched, was used to identify additional papers. Eligibility criteria Studies needed to be focused on sustainability and on professionals’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care. Studies had to include at least 2 measurements: 1 before (PRE) or immediately after implementation (EARLY POST) and 1 measurement longer than 1 year after active implementation (LATE POST). Results The search retrieved 4219 items, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 18 sustainability evaluations. The mean timeframe between the end of active implementation and the sustainability evaluation was 2.6 years (minimum 1.5–maximum 7.0). The studies were heterogeneous with respect to their methodology. Sustainability was considered to be successful if performance in terms of professionals’ adherence was fully maintained in the late postimplementation phase. Long-term sustainability of professionals’ adherence was reported in 7 out of 18 evaluations, adherence was not sustained in 6 evaluations, 4 evaluations showed mixed sustainability results and in 1 evaluation it was unclear whether the professional adherence was sustained. Conclusions (2) Professionals’ adherence to a clinical practice guideline in medical care decreased after more than 1 year after implementation in about half of the cases. (1) Owing to the limited number of studies, the absence of a uniform definition, the high risk of bias, and the mixed results of studies, no firm conclusion about the sustainability of professionals’ adherence to guidelines in medical practice can be drawn.

Shared decision making in the Netherlands, is the time ripe for nationwide, structural implementation?

WHAT ABOUT POLICY REGARDING SDM? The Dutch health care system has been reformed in 2006 to make it more patient-oriented and demand-driven. We shortly describe four strategies of this health care reform. Although research projects are now fully spread over the country, a coordinated research agenda on SDM is lacking. WHAT ABOUT TOOLS - DECISION SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS? The Dutch governmental healthcare internet portal for patients hosts 16 patient decision aids. WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INTEREST AND IMPLEMENTATION? There is quite a strong patient participation movement in the Netherlands, on macro and meso level. Limited effort, related to the local research projects has been put into training professionals in SDM skills. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE? We need concerted action on the level of educating health care professionals, empowering patients, making patient decision aids easily accessible, supporting the professionals in this new task, and measuring the process of SDM in performance indicators used in quality assurance. The Dutch Platform for SDM that will be launched in Maastricht in June 2011 is therefore a timely and relevant initiative.

Implementation of a short-stay programme after breast cancer surgery

Short‐stay breast cancer surgery (24 h or day case) is not common practice in Europe. This before–after comparative study was carried out to test the feasibility of systematically implementing a care programme incorporating short‐stay admission using strategies tailored to individual hospital needs, and to assess safety and facilitating factors.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic research. Considerations about assessment and incorporation of methodological quality.

The aim of this paper is to provide a theoretical background for performing and reading systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. We first discuss items for assessment of methodological quality in diagnostic studies and then present methods on how to incorporate these quality measures in systematic reviews. The items of internal validity determine whether the presented results of the individual studies are unbiased and can be trusted. Items of external validity determine to what extent the results are applicable outside the population in which the study was performed. The issues concern the adequacy of the study population, the performance and interpretation of the diagnostic tests and the presentation of the results. Several methods exist for incorporation of issues of methodological quality into systematic reviews, such as subgroup analyses, meta-regression analysis, and methodological scores. Publications of diagnostic studies should provide sufficient information to enable assessment of the methodological quality. Furthermore, publication of results of subgroup analyses should be promoted. Methodological criteria lists might help to improve the quality of systematic reviews of diagnostic research. With the items of methodological quality in mind the general practitioner might be better equipped to critically read and interpret diagnostic reviews.

Setting goals in chronic care: Shared decision making as self-management support by the family physician

Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.

Being at risk for cardiovascular disease: Perceptions and preventive behavior in people with and without a known genetic predisposition

This study compares and explains differences in perceptions of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and preventive behaviors in people with and without a known genetic predisposition to CVD. A cross-sectional study using two samples was performed. The first sample (genetic predisposition; n = 51) consisted of individuals recently diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) through DNA testing. The second sample (no genetic predisposition; n = 49) was recruited among patients with CVD-risk profiles based on family history of CVD, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, registered at general practices. Participants filled out a postal questionnaire asking about their perceived risk, causal attributions (i.e. genetic and lifestyle), and about perceived efficacy and adoption of preventive behavior (i.e. medication adherence and adoption of a healthy diet and being sufficiently active). Perceived comparative risk, genetic attributions of CVD, and perceived efficacy of medication were higher in the “genetic predisposition” sample than in the “no genetic predisposition” sample. The samples did not differ on lifestyle attributions, efficacy of a healthy lifestyle, or preventive behavior. Individual differences in perceived risk, genetic attributions, perceived efficacy of medication, and adoption of a healthy lifestyle were best explained by family history of CVD. Our findings suggest that in people diagnosed with a single gene disorder characterized by a family disease history such as FH, family disease history may be more important than DNA information in explaining perceptions of and responses to risk.