An effective system of risk selection is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care at the right time and at the right place. To gain more insight into the existing... Show moreAn effective system of risk selection is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care at the right time and at the right place. To gain more insight into the existing models of risk selection (MRS), we explored the distribution of different MRS across regions in The Netherlands, and examined the relation between MRS and primary care midwives' and obstetricians' satisfaction with different MRS. We conducted a nationwide survey amongst all primary midwifery care practices and obstetrics departments. The questionnaire was completed by 312 (55%) primary midwifery care practices and 53 (72%) obstetrics departments. We identified three MRS, which were distributed differently across regions: (1) primary care midwives assess risk and initiate a consultation or transfer of care without discussing this first with the obstetrician, (2) primary care midwives assess risk and make decisions about consultation or transfer of care collaboratively with obstetricians, and (3) models with other characteristics. Across these MRS, variations exist in several aspects, including the routine involvement of the obstetrician in the care of healthy pregnant women. We found no significant difference between MRS and professionals' level of satisfaction. An evidence- and value-based approach is recommended in the pursuit of the optimal organization of risk selection. This requires further research into associations between MRS and maternal and perinatal outcomes, professional payment methods, resource allocation, and the experiences of women and care professionals. Show less
Spierings, J.; Ende, C.H.M. van den; Schriemer, R.M.; Moens, H.J.B.; Bijl, E.A. van der; Bonte-Mineur, F.; ... ; ARCH Study Grp 2020
Objectives. To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.Methods. An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived... Show moreObjectives. To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.Methods. An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals.Results. Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators.Conclusion. The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc. Show less
