Day-to-day fluctuations of fatigue severity in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: an ecological momentary assessment approach.

Objective: The variable course of fatigue adds to the disease burden of patients with OA yet it has been poorly understood. This study aimed to describe within-person fluctuations of fatigue severity and explore its associations with pain, positive affect, negative affect, sleep, and perceived exertion of physical activity. Methods: Individuals with chronic knee pain or a clinical diagnosis of knee OA ≥40 years of age completed daily assessments about fatigue, pain, positive affect, negative affect, sleep, perceived exertion of physical activity (numeric rating scale 0-10), and overwhelming fatigue (yes/no) on a smartphone over 14 days. Within-person fluctuations of fatigue severity were described by the probability of acute changes (PACs) and s.d.s. Associations with pain, positive affect, negative affect, sleep, and perceived exertion of physical activity were explored using multilevel models. Results: Forty-nine individuals were included (mean age 63.4 years; 82% female). PACs and s.d.s of within-person daily fatigue fluctuations ranged from 0.00 to 0.80 and 0.35 to 2.95, respectively. Within-person associations of fatigue severity were moderate for positive affect [ß = -0.57 (95% CI -0.67, -0.47)], weak for pain [ß = 0.41 (95% CI 0.29, 0.53)] and negative affect [ß = 0.40 (95% CI 0.21, 0.58)], and negligible for sleep [ß = -0.13 (95% CI -0.18, -0.08)] and perceived exertion of physical activity [ß = 0.18 (95% CI 0.09, 0.26)]. Conclusion: Some individuals showed almost stable day-to-day levels of fatigue severity, whereas others experienced a substantial number of clinically relevant fluctuations. To reduce the burden of daily fatigue fluctuations, our results suggest that pain, positive and negative affect rather than sleep and perceived exertion of physical activity should be considered as potential targets.

Pain descriptors and determinants of pain sensitivity in knee osteoarthritis: a community-based cross-sectional study.

Objectives: The aim was to explore pain characteristics in individuals with knee OA (KOA), to compare pain sensitivity across individuals with KOA, individuals with chronic back pain (CBP) and pain-free individuals (NP) and to examine the relationship between clinical characteristics and pain sensitivity and between pain characteristics and pain sensitivity in KOA. Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional, community-based online survey. Two data sets were combined, consisting of Dutch individuals ≥40 years of age, who were experiencing chronic knee pain (KOA, n = 445), chronic back pain (CBP, n = 504) or no pain (NP, n = 256). Demographic and clinical characteristics, global health, physical activity/exercise and pain characteristics, including intensity, spreading, duration, quality (short-form McGill pain questionnaire) and sensitivity (pain sensitivity questionnaire), were assessed. Differences between (sub)groups were examined using analyses of variance or χ2 tests. Regression analyses were performed to examine determinants of pain sensitivity in the KOA group. Results: The quality of pain was most commonly described as aching, tender and tiring-exhausting. Overall, the KOA group had higher levels of pain sensitivity compared with the NP group, but lower levels than the CBP group. Univariately, pain intensity, its variability and spreading, global health, exercise and having co-morbidities were weakly related to pain sensitivity (standardized ß: 0.12-0.27). Symptom duration was not related to pain sensitivity. Older age, higher levels of continuous pain, lower levels of global health, and exercise contributed uniquely, albeit modestly, to pain sensitivity (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Continuous pain, such as aching and tenderness, in combination with decreased physical activity might be indicative for a subgroup of individuals at risk for pain sensitivity and, ultimately, poor treatment outcomes.

Increased adherence to perioperative safety guidelines associated with improved patient safety outcomes: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: National Dutch guidelines have been introduced to improve suboptimal perioperative care. A multifaceted implementation programme (IMPlementatie Richtlijnen Operatieve VEiligheid [IMPROVE]) has been developed to support hospitals in applying these guidelines. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IMPROVE on guideline adherence and the association between guideline adherence and patient safety. METHODS: Nine hospitals participated in this unblinded, superiority, stepped-wedge, cluster RCT in patients with major noncardiac surgery (mortality risk ≥1%). IMPROVE consisted of educational activities, audit and feedback, reminders, organisational, team-directed, and patient-mediated activities. The primary outcome of the study was guideline adherence measured by nine patient safety indicators on the process (stop moments from the composite STOP bundle, and timely administration of antibiotics) and on the structure of perioperative care. Secondary safety outcomes included in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and unplanned care. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1934 patients. The IMPROVE programme improved one stop moment: 'discharge from recovery room' (+16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-23%). This stop moment was related to decreased mortality (-3%; 95% CI, -4% to -1%), fewer complications (-8%; 95% CI, -13% to -3%), and fewer unscheduled transfers to the ICU (-6%; 95% CI, -9% to -3%). IMPROVE negatively affected one other stop moment - 'discharge from the hospital' - possibly because of the limited resources of hospitals to improve all stop moments together. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed implementation effects of IMPROVE were found. We found some positive associations between guideline adherence and patient safety (i.e. mortality, complications, and unscheduled transfers to the ICU) except for the timely administration of antibiotics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3568 (Dutch Trial Registry).

Reducing work pressure and IT problems and facilitating IT integration and audit & feedback help adherence to perioperative safety guidelines: a survey among 95 perioperative professionals.

BACKGROUND: To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation of these guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guideline adherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. for classifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviews with quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. The target group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on a five-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to the intervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents were invited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question. RESULTS: Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered to be barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1), and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) as well as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly all categories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number of barriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safety guidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary to engage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementation strategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.

Availability of Dutch General Practitioners for After-Hours Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is important for palliative patients in their end of life. In the Netherlands, after-hours primary care for palliative patients is either provided by large-scale general practitioner (GP) cooperatives or GPs choose to give palliative care by themselves while they are not on duty. AIM: To examine the availability of, perceived problems by, and attitude of Dutch GPs regarding providing palliative care for their own patients outside office hours. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional observational study among 1772 GPs from 10 Dutch regions. METHOD: Online questionnaire among GPs affiliated with 10 GP cooperatives. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-four (29.6%) eligible questionnaires were returned. Of the GPs, 60.8% were personally available outside office hours for their own palliative patients on their own private cell phone and performed home visits if needed. In 33.0%, GPs were willing to make home visits in private time instigated by the GP cooperative and 26.8% were only accessible for telephone consultation by the GP cooperative. In 12.2%, the GP delegated after-hours palliative care completely to the GP cooperative. The GPs predominantly reported "time pressure" problems (17.3%) as a barrier and 61.7% stated that after-hours palliative care is the responsibility of the own GP. CONCLUSION: The large majority of Dutch GPs is personally available for telephone consultation and/or willing to provide palliative care for their own patients outside office hours. For the future, it is important to maintain the willingness of GPs to remain personally available for their palliative patients.

Ambulance dispatch versus general practitioner home visit for highly urgent out-of-hours primary care.

Background: Patients with life-threatening conditions who contact out-of-hours primary care either receive a home visit from a GP of a GP cooperative (GPC) or are handed over to the ambulance service. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether highly urgent visits, after a call to the GPC, are delivered by the most appropriate healthcare provider: GPC or ambulance service. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using patient record data from a GPC and ambulance service in an urban district in The Netherlands. During a 21-month period, all calls triaged as life-threatening (U1) to the GPCs were included. The decision to send an ambulance or not was made by the triage nurse following a protocolized triage process. Retrospectively, the most appropriate care was judged by the patient's own GP, using a questionnaire. Results: Patient and care characteristics from 1081 patients were gathered: 401 GPC visits, 570 ambulance responses and 110 with both ambulance and GPC deployment. In 598 of 1081 (55.3%) cases, questionnaires were returned by the patients' own GP. About 40% of all visits could have been carried out with a lower urgency in retrospect, and almost half of all visits should have received a different type of care or different provider. In case of ambulance response, 60.7% concerned chest pain. Conclusion: Research should be done on the process of triage and allocation of care to optimize labelling complaints with the appropriate urgency and to deploy the appropriate healthcare provider, especially for patients with chest pain.

The impact of the implementation of physician assistants in inpatient care: A multicenter matched-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Medical care for admitted patients in hospitals is increasingly reallocated to physician assistants (PAs). There is limited evidence about the consequences for the quality and safety of care. This study aimed to determine the effects of substitution of inpatient care from medical doctors (MDs) to PAs on patients' length of stay (LOS), quality and safety of care, and patient experiences with the provided care. METHODS: In a multicenter matched-controlled study, the traditional model in which only MDs are employed for inpatient care (MD model) was compared with a mixed model in which besides MDs also PAs are employed (PA/MD model). Thirty-four wards were recruited across the Netherlands. Patients were followed from admission till one month after discharge. Primary outcome measure was patients' LOS. Secondary outcomes concerned eleven indicators for quality and safety of inpatient care and patients' experiences with the provided care. RESULTS: Data on 2,307 patients from 34 hospital wards was available. The involvement of PAs was not significantly associated with LOS (ß 1.20, 95%CI 0.99-1.40, p = .062). None of the indicators for quality and safety of care were different between study arms. However, the involvement of PAs was associated with better experiences of patients (ß 0.49, 95% CI 0.22-0.76, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences regarding LOS and quality of care between wards on which PAs, in collaboration with MDs, provided medical care for the admitted patients, and wards on which only MDs provided medical care. Employing PAs seems to be safe and seems to lead to better patient experiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835444.