[The Dutch College of General Practitioners practice guideline on 'Sexual problems']. / NHG-standaard 'Seksuele klachten'.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners practice guideline on 'Sexual problems' describes the diagnostics and management of common sexual problems. An adequate sexual anamnesis is essential in order to obtain a good picture of the patient's symptoms and of any underlying causes. Additional physical or other medical examination is of limited value. The provision of information and advice are central to the treatment of sexual problems. Attention should be paid to the different aspects of sexual functioning: physical, psychological, relational and sociocultural, and to gender differences. In many cases, management is determined by the causal factor, for instance comorbidity, sexual trauma or relational problems. In other cases, a more specific problem is diagnosed, and management is based on this.

[NHG guideline 'Deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolus']. / NHG-standaard 'Diepe veneuze trombose en longembolie'.

The revised Dutch College of General Practitioners (Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap [NHG]) guideline 'Deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolus' includes recommendations for the treatment of patients with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and thrombophlebitis, and for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE). The general practitioner (GP) can exclude the presence of DVT or PE in some patients by using a decision rule and a D-dimer test. When using D-dimer test as a point-of-care test, meticulous care is essential during the test procedure and storage of blood. The GP can treat many patients with DVT; the NHG guideline does not advise use of direct oral anticoagulants. In the case of an isolated DVT in the calf, treatment with anticoagulants or ultrasound follow-up can be chosen in consultation with the patient or on the basis of regional agreements. In the case of patients with superficial thrombophlebitis, a wait-and-see approach is usually sufficient.

A systematic review of the relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based clinical settings. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 24.

BACKGROUND: Clinical workplace-based learning has been the means to becoming a medical professional for many years. The importance of an adequate patient mix, as defined by the number of patients and the types of medical problems, for an optimal learning process is based on educational theory and recognised by national and international accreditation standards. The relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based curricula as yet remains unclear. AIM: To review research addressing the relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based clinical settings. METHOD: The search was conducted across Medline, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC and the Cochrane Library from the start date of the database to July 2011. Original quantitative studies on the relationship between patient mix and learning for learners at any level of the formal medical training/career were included. Methodological quality was assessed and two reviewers using pre-specified forms extracted results. RESULTS: A total of 10,420 studies were screened on title and abstract. Of these, 298 articles were included for full-text analysis, which resulted in the inclusion of 22 papers. The quality of the included studies, scored with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), ranged from 8.0 to 14.5 (of 18 points). A positive relationship was found between patient mix and self-reported outcomes evaluating the progress in competence as experienced by the trainee, such as self-confidence and comfort level. Patient mix was also found to correlate positively with self-reported outcomes evaluating the quality of the learning period, such as self-reported learning benefit, experienced effectiveness of the rotation, or the instructional quality. Variables, such as supervision and learning style, might mediate this relationship. A relationship between patient mix and formal assessment has never been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Patient mix is positively related to self-reported learning outcome, most evidently the experienced quality of the learning programme.

Which barriers affect morbidity registration performance of GP trainees and trainers?

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis coding percentages in the specialty training of general practitioners (GPs) are generally high, but not perfect, indicating barriers against coding still exist, possibly influencing the validity of data based on electronic patient records (EPRs). OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between barriers to coding diagnoses with the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) of GP trainees and trainers and their self-reported and actual coding performance. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed, and returned by 71 (of 73, 97%) GP trainees and 103 (of 108, 95%) GP trainers, affiliated to the GP Specialty Training of the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam. Their barriers to ICPC coding and self-reported coding performance were compared with EPR-derived data extractions that were collected during one year. RESULTS: Mean coding percentages were 88.3 (SD=11.5) and 82.3% (SD=19.0) (trainees/trainers). Most participants reported always registering ICPC codes for consultations and home visits, specifically in those situations pre-specified in the questionnaire. Telephone consultations, repeat prescriptions and administrative actions were coded less frequently. Most participants never or rarely experienced coding barriers, an exception being 'insufficient refinement of the ICPC system'. Most motivation and ICPC-related barriers correlated with self-reported and actual coding performance. Regression analyses showed that 'ICPC coding is unpleasant to use' predicted both trainees' and trainers' coding percentages. The trainers' coding percentage was also predicted by 'no personal gain from ICPC' and 'coding is difficult'. CONCLUSION: The mean coding percentages we found were high, but could further be improved by increasing GPs' motivation and by making ICPC coding more user-friendly. EPR-derived data seem biased by non-coded telephone consultations only.

Steering the patient mix of GP trainees: results of a randomized controlled intervention.

BACKGROUND: In studies exploring the patient mixes of general practitioner (GP) trainees, gaps were repeatedly found, as there were disparities between the patient mixes of GP trainers and trainees. This reduces the opportunities of trainees to acquire enough competence. AIMS: To investigate whether steering the patient mix can be effectuated by instructing medical receptionist, trainer and trainee, and to study the effects of this intervention on trainee's self-efficacy (SE) and knowledge. METHOD: Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). After a six-month basic registration period, 73 trainees were randomized. Patients with skin conditions and psychosocial conditions were actively assigned to trainees in the intervention group (n=35) during two successive periods of three months. The patient mix was measured by extracting data from electronic patient records. Learning outcomes were measured by SE questionnaires and by a knowledge test. RESULTS: No increase was found in patient volume and diversity of the steered conditions in the intervention group as compared to the control group. However, the percentual increase of exposure to skin conditions was greater in the intervention group. No difference in skin SE and psychiatric knowledge was found. The increase of psychosocial SE was greater in the intervention group. In a regression analysis, patient volume was a significant predictor of both skin and psychosocial SE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the difficulty in implementing steering in daily practice, tailoring the patient mix to the individual learning needs of trainees could be considered.

Opening the black box: the patient mix of GP trainees.

BACKGROUND: The variety of health problems (patient mix) that medical trainees encounter is presumed to be sufficient to master the required competencies. AIM: To describe the patient mix of GP trainees, to study differences in patient mix between first-year and third-year GP trainees, and to investigate differences in exposure to sex-specific diseases between male and female trainees. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in Dutch primary care. METHOD: During a 6-month period, aggregated data about International Classification of Primary Care diagnosis codes, and data on the sex and age of all contacts were collected from the electronic patient record (EPR) system. RESULTS: Seventy-three trainees participated in this study. The mean coding percentage was 86% and the mean number of face-to-face consultations per trimester was 450.0 in the first year and 485.4 in the third year, indicating greater variance in the number of patient contacts among third-year trainees. Diseases seen most frequently were: musculoskeletal (mean per trimester = 89.2 in the first year/91.0 in the third year), respiratory (98.2/92.7) and skin diseases (89.5/96.0). Least often seen were diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs (5.3/7.2), male genital disorders (6.1/7.1), and social problems (4.3/4.2). The mean number of chronic diseases seen per trimester was 48.0 for first-year trainees and 62.4 for third-year trainees. Female trainees saw an average of 39.8 female conditions per trimester--twice as many as male trainees (mean = 21.3). CONCLUSION: Considerable variation exists trainees in the number of patient contacts. Differences in patient mix between first- and third-year trainees seem at least partly related to year-specific learning objectives. The use of an EPR-derived educational instrument provides insight into the trainees' patient mix at both the group and the individual level. This offers opportunities for GP trainers, trainees, and curriculum designers to optimise learning when exposure may be low.

Exploring differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and their trainers.

Background During specialty training for general practice, trainees acquire the required competencies through work-based learning. Previous small-scale and older studies suggest that the patient mix of general practitioner (GP) trainees differs from that of their trainers: trainees are exposed to more minor illnesses, and fewer chronic diseases and severe conditions, which may influence the development of their competency. Research question What are the differences in the patient mix between trainees and trainers? Methods 49 first- and 24 third-year trainees and their trainers (n=114) were included in the study. International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) contact and diagnosis codes were extracted from electronic patient records over 6 months. Results Trainers had double the number of face-to-face consultations, and treble the number of telephone consultations compared with trainees. The trainees' patient mix consisted of significantly more patients with eye diseases, ear diseases, respiratory diseases, skin diseases and minor illnesses compared with their trainers. Trainers encountered significantly more patients with circulatory diseases, psychiatric diseases, metabolic diseases, male genital conditions, social problems, and chronic and oncological diseases. Female trainers and trainees encountered almost twice the number of female conditions compared with their male counterparts, while for male conditions, the opposite was found. Discussion Considerable differences between the patient mix of trainers and trainees were found. Specialty trainers and teachers must be aware of areas of low exposure. Trainers should ensure trainees handle more chronic, complex, psychosocial and circulatory conditions.

Who determines the patient mix of GP trainees? The role of the receptionist.

BACKGROUND: During their specialty training, Dutch GP trainees work at a GP under the supervision of a GP trainer. Research suggests that the patient mix of GP trainees differs from that of their trainers. Receptionists assign patients to either the trainee or the trainer, thereby influencing the patient mix of the trainees. The decision to which doctor to assign is complex and depends on the latitude the receptionists have. Their considerations when assigning patients are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To study receptionists' assigning behaviour. METHODS: This was a questionnaire survey. To design the questionnaire, topics about assigning behaviour were identified in a focus group. The resulting questionnaire was sent to 478 GP training practices in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Response rate was 68%. Of the receptionists, 95% asked for the reason for the consultation at least 'sometimes'. Most (86.3%) of the receptionists considered the patient mix of trainees and trainers to be similar. Almost all receptionists (97%) reported 'often' or 'always' assigning 'every possible problem' to the trainee and a similar picture arose regarding specific subpopulations. However, the receptionists reported that they assigned complex and new patients to the trainers more often than to trainees. CONCLUSION: With some exceptions, receptionists try to assign trainees a varied patient mix.