ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To explore the combined effect of trends in older people on their future healthcare utilisation. METHODS: A Delphi study consisting of two rounds was conducted. The heterogeneous expert panel (nâ¯=â¯16) in the field of elderly care rated the effect of combinations of trends in the Netherlands on the use of seven healthcare services: i.e. informal, home, general practitioner, acute, specialist, nursing home and mental health care. The percentage and direction of the overall consensus, for the different health services, and for three main trends were analysed. RESULTS: Experts reached consensus in 57 of 92 ratings (62%). Taking into account the interaction between trends, they expected an extra increase for informal, home, and general practitioner care, but no additional effect of interaction for specialist and acute care. Combinations that included trends leading to less support were expected to lead to an extra increase in utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Experts expect that interaction between trends will lead to an extra increase in the use of general practitioner, home, and informal care. This increase is mainly the result of interaction with trends leading to less support for older persons. The present results show the need to take the effect of interaction into account when designing new health policy and in research on future healthcare utilisation.
Subject(s)
Aging , Health Services/trends , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Delphi Technique , Female , Humans , Independent Living/trends , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Population DynamicsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals. RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 µGy·m2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 µGy·m2, respectively.