Background While remote patient management (RPM) has the potential to assist in achieving treatment targets for cardiovascular risk factors in primary care, its effectiveness may vary among... Show moreBackground While remote patient management (RPM) has the potential to assist in achieving treatment targets for cardiovascular risk factors in primary care, its effectiveness may vary among different patient subgroups. Panel management, which involves proactive care for specific patient risk groups, could offer a promising approach to tailor RPM to these groups. This study aims to (i) assess the perception of healthcare professionals and other stakeholders regarding the adoption and (ii) identify the barriers and facilitators for successfully implementing such a panel management approach. Methods In total, nineteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups were conducted in the Netherlands. Three authors reviewed the audited transcripts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Strategies (CFIR) domains were used for the thematic analysis. Results A total of 24 participants (GPs, nurses, health insurers, project managers, and IT consultants) participated. Overall, a panel management approach to RPM in primary care was considered valuable by various stakeholders. Implementation barriers encompassed concerns about missing necessary risk factors for patient stratification, additional clinical and technical tasks for nurses, and reimbursement agreements. Facilitators included tailoring consultation frequency and early detection of at-risk patients, an implementation manager accountable for supervising project procedures and establishing agreements on assessing implementation metrics, and ambassador roles. Conclusion Panel management could enhance proactive care and accurately identify which patients could benefit most from RPM to mitigate CVD risk. For successful implementation, we recommend having clear agreements on technical support, financial infrastructure and the criteria for measuring evaluation outcomes. Show less
Roi-Teeuw, H.M. la; Luijken, K.; Blom, M.T.; Gussekloo, J.; Mooijaart, S.P.; Polinder-Bos, H.A.; ... ; Dries, C.J. van den 2024
BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients in primary care were triaged based on their frailty or assumed vulnerability for poor outcomes, while evidence on the prognostic value of... Show moreBackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients in primary care were triaged based on their frailty or assumed vulnerability for poor outcomes, while evidence on the prognostic value of vulnerability measures in COVID-19 patients in primary care was lacking. Still, knowledge on the role of vulnerability is pivotal in understanding the resilience of older people during acute illness, and hence important for future pandemic preparedness. Therefore, we assessed the predictive value of different routine care-based vulnerability measures in addition to age and sex for 28-day mortality in an older primary care population of patients with COVID-19.MethodsFrom primary care medical records using three routinely collected Dutch primary care databases, we included all patients aged 70 years or older with a COVID-19 diagnosis registration in 2020 and 2021. All-cause mortality was predicted using logistic regression based on age and sex only (basic model), and separately adding six vulnerability measures: renal function, cognitive impairment, number of chronic drugs, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Chronic Comorbidity Score, and a Frailty Index. Predictive performance of the basic model and the six vulnerability models was compared in terms of area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), index of prediction accuracy and the distribution of predicted risks.ResultsOf the 4,065 included patients, 9% died within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Predicted mortality risk ranged between 7–26% for the basic model including age and sex, changing to 4–41% by addition of comorbidity-based vulnerability measures (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Chronic Comorbidity Score), more reflecting impaired organ functioning. Similarly, the AUC of the basic model slightly increased from 0.69 (95%CI 0.66 – 0.72) to 0.74 (95%CI 0.71 – 0.76) by addition of either of these comorbidity scores. Addition of a Frailty Index, renal function, the number of chronic drugs or cognitive impairment yielded no substantial change in predictions.ConclusionIn our dataset of older COVID-19 patients in primary care, the 28-day mortality fraction was substantial at 9%. Six different vulnerability measures had little incremental predictive value in addition to age and sex in predicting short-term mortality. Show less
AbstractBackgroundMolluscum contagiosum (MC) can cause significant burden in children. So far, pharmacological treatment has not been proven beneficial. More rigorous interventions have not been... Show moreAbstractBackgroundMolluscum contagiosum (MC) can cause significant burden in children. So far, pharmacological treatment has not been proven beneficial. More rigorous interventions have not been well studied. Current guidelines advise a “wait and see” policy. However, children and their parents frequently visit their GP requesting intervention. Therefore, the aim of this study was to gain insight into the approach to MC by GPs and parents’ expectations and to investigate willingness to participate in an interventional study.MethodsA survey study was carried out among GPs and parents using a questionnaire for each group inquiring about MC and potential study participation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results and logistical regression to investigate factors influencing participation.ResultsThe majority of GPs (88%) preferred an expectative approach; only 21% were willing to participate in a trial as proposed. GPs estimating ≥ 50% of parents would request treatment, were more likely to participate. Most responding parents did or would visit their GP requesting treatment. In contrast to GPs, 58% were willing to participate. Parents preferring cryotherapy or curettage were more likely to participate.ConclusionOur study demonstrated that the majority of GPs preferred a conservative approach, adhering to current guidelines. However, most parents preferred treatment to resolve MC and symptoms. Parents’ willingness to participate was much higher than GP’s, reflecting parents’ desire for treatment. These findings underscore the need for continued therapeutic research. Careful preparation and selection of GPs and patients will be essential to ensure the feasibility of such an endeavor. Show less
Bulk, S. van den; Spoelman, W.A.; Dijkman, P.R.M. van; Numans, M.E.; Bonten, T.N.; Leiden Univ Med Ctr LUMC 2022
Background: The prevalence of coronary artery disease is increasing due to the aging population and increasing prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Non-acute chest pain often is the first... Show moreBackground: The prevalence of coronary artery disease is increasing due to the aging population and increasing prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Non-acute chest pain often is the first symptom of stable coronary artery disease. To optimise care for patients with non-acute chest pain and make efficient use of available resources, we need to know more about the current incidence, referral rate and management of these patients. Methods: We used routinely collected health data from the STIZON data warehouse in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2016. Patients > 18 years, with no history of cardiovascular disease, seen by the general practitioner (GP) for non-acute chest pain with a suspected cardiac origin were included. Outcomes were (i) incidence of new non-acute chest pain in primary care, (ii) referral rates to the cardiologist, (iii) correspondence from the cardiologist to the GP, (iv) registration by GPs of received correspondence and; (v) pharmacological guideline adherence after newly diagnosed stable angina pectoris. Results: In total 9029 patients were included during the study period, resulting in an incidence of new non-acute chest pain of 1.01/1000 patient-years. 2166 (24%) patients were referred to the cardiologist. In 857/2114 (41%) referred patients, correspondence from the cardiologist was not available in the GP's electronic medical record. In 753/1257 (60%) patients with available correspondence, the GP did not code the conclusion in the electronic medical record. Despite guideline recommendations, 37/255 (15%) patients with angina pectoris were not prescribed antiplatelet therapy nor anticoagulation, 69/255 (27%) no statin and 67/255 (26%) no beta-blocker. Conclusion: After referral, both communication from cardiologists and registration of the final diagnosis by GPs were suboptimal. Both cardiologists and GPs should make adequate communication and registration a priority, as it improves health outcomes. Secondary pharmacological prevention in patients with angina pectoris was below guideline standards. So, proactive attention needs to be given to optimise secondary prevention in this high-risk group in primary care. Show less
Background: Timely initiation of advance care planning (ACP) in general practice is challenging, especially in patients with non-malignant conditions. Our aim was to investigate how perceived... Show moreBackground: Timely initiation of advance care planning (ACP) in general practice is challenging, especially in patients with non-malignant conditions. Our aim was to investigate how perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation and its triggers relate to recorded actual timing in patients with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. Methods: In this mixed-methods study in the Netherlands, we analysed health records selected from a database with primary care routine data and with a recorded ACP conversation in the last two years before death of patients who died with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. We compared actual timing of ACP initiation as recorded in health records of 51 patients with the perceived optimal timing as determined by 83 independent GPs who studied these records. Further, to identify and compare triggers for GPs to initiate ACP, we analysed the health record documentation around the moments of the recorded actual timing of ACP initiation and the perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation. We combined quantitative descriptive statistics with qualitative content analysis. Results: The recorded actual timing of ACP initiation was significantly closer to death than the perceived optimal timing in patients with cancer (median 88 vs. 111 days before death (p = 0.049)), organ failure (227 vs. 306 days before death (p = 0.02)) and multimorbidity (113 vs. 338 days before death (p = 0.006)). Triggers for recorded actual versus perceived optimal timing were similar across the three groups, the most frequent being 'expressions of patients' reflections or wishes' (14% and 14% respectively) and 'appropriate setting' (10% and 13% respectively). Conclusion: ACP in general practice was initiated and recorded later in the illness trajectory than considered optimal, especially in patients with organ failure or multimorbidity. As triggers were similar for recorded actual and perceived optimal timing, we recommend that GPs initiate ACP shortly after a trigger is noticed the first time, rather than wait for additional or more evident triggers when the illness is in an advanced stage. Show less
Vijver, P.L. van de; Schalkwijk, F.H.; Numans, M.E.; Slaets, J.P.J.; Bodegom, D. van 2022
Background: Physical inactivity has contributed to the current prevalence of many age-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Peer coach physical activity... Show moreBackground: Physical inactivity has contributed to the current prevalence of many age-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Peer coach physical activity intervention are effective in increasing long term physical activity in community dwelling older adults. Linking peer coach physical activity interventions to formal care could therefore be a promising novel method to improve health in inactive older adults to a successful long-term physical activity intervention. Methods: We evaluated the effects of linking a peer coach physical activity intervention in Leiden, The Netherlands to primary care through an exercise referral scheme from July 2018 to April 2020. Primary care practices in the neighborhoods of three existing peer coach physical activity groups were invited to refer patients to the exercise groups. Referrals were registered at the primary care practice and participation in the peer coach groups was registered by the peer coaches of the exercise groups. Results: During the study, a total of 106 patients were referred to the peer coach groups. 5.7% of patients participated at the peer coach groups and 66.7% remained participating during the 1 year follow up. The number needed to refer for 1 long term participant was 26.5. The mean frequency of participation of the referred participants was 1.2 times a week. Conclusion: Linking a peer coach physical activity intervention for older adults to a primary care referral scheme reached only a small fraction of the estimated target population. However, of the people that came to the peer coach intervention a large portion continued to participate during the entire study period. The number needed to refer to engage one older person in long term physical activity was similar to other referral schemes for lifestyle interventions. The potential benefits could be regarded proportional to the small effort needed to refer. Show less
Background: Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill... Show moreBackground: Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data. Results: Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%). Conclusions: This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD. Show less
