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.