Improving screening and brief intervention activities in primary health care: Secondary analysis of professional accuracy based on the AUDIT-C.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The ODHIN trial found that training and support and financial reimbursement increased the proportion of patients that were screened and given advice for their heavy drinking in primary health care. However, the impact of these strategies on professional accuracy in delivering screening and brief advice is underresearched and is the focus of this paper. METHOD: From 120 primary health care units (24 in each jurisdiction: Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden), 746 providers participated in the baseline and the 12-week implementation periods. Accuracy was measured in 2 ways: correctness in completing and scoring the screening instrument, AUDIT-C; the proportion of screen-negative patients given advice, and the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice. Odds ratios of accuracy were calculated for type of profession and for intervention group: training and support, financial reimbursement, and internet-based counselling. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 36 711 questionnaires were incorrectly completed, and 65 of 29 641 screen-negative patients were falsely classified. At baseline, 27% of screen-negative patients were given advice, and 22.5% screen-positive patients were not given advice. These proportions halved during the 12-week implementation period, unaffected by training. Financial reimbursement reduced the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Although the use of AUDIT-C as a screening tool was accurate, a considerable proportion of risky drinkers did not receive advice, which was reduced with financial incentives.

Effect of audit and feedback with peer review on general practitioners' prescribing and test ordering performance: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Much research worldwide is focussed on cost containment and better adherence to guidelines in healthcare. The research focussing on professional behaviour is often performed in a well-controlled research setting. In this study a large-scale implementation of a peer review strategy was tested on both test ordering and prescribing behaviour in primary care in the normal quality improvement setting. METHODS: We planned a cluster-RCT in existing local quality improvement collaboratives (LQICs) in primary care. The study ran from January 2008 to January 2011. LQICs were randomly assigned to one of two trial arms, with each arm receiving the same intervention of audit and feedback combined with peer review. Both arms were offered five different clinical topics and acted as blind controls for the other arm. The differences in test ordering rates and prescribing rates between both arms were analysed in an intention-to-treat pre-post analysis and a per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one LQIC groups, including 197 GPs working in 88 practices, entered the trial. The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a difference in the changes in test ordering or prescribing performance between intervention and control groups. The per-protocol analysis showed positive results for half of the clinical topics. The increase in total tests ordered was 3% in the intervention arm and 15% in the control arm. For prescribing the increase in prescriptions was 20% in the intervention arm and 66% in the control group. It was observed that the groups with the highest baseline test ordering and prescription volumes showed the largest improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the results from earlier work could not be confirmed by our attempt to implement the strategy in the field. We did not see a decrease in the volumes of tests ordered or of the drugs prescribed but were able to show a lesser increase instead. Implementing the peer review with audit and feedback proved to be not feasible in primary care in the Netherlands. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at the Dutch trial register under number ISRCTN40008171 on August 7th 2007.

[Securing the financing of care for the frail elderly: problems and solutions]. / Borging van de financiering van zorg voor kwetsbare ouderen in het Nationaal Programma Ouderenzorg: knelpunten en oplossingsrichtingen.

Projects within the Dutch National Program for Elderly Care (NPO) have been experimenting since 2008 to increase coherence in care for the frail elderly. Invest-NPO explored the problems and solutions to secure the financing of these innovative projects. Problems were expected with coordination because there was not yet a structural reimbursement for such an activity for the frail elderly. There where doubts about the adequacy of reimbursement for multidisciplinary consultation and certain structural conditions. The existing fragmentation across multiple domains and reimbursement rules made it difficult to achieve an integrated approach and creativeness in care. The principles of bundled payment can be helpful in problems concerning multidisciplinary consultation, structural conditions and coordination because joint agreements are needed. According to many, capitation is even a better solution if properly applied, because there are fewer boundaries in deciding how care is organized. Initiatives from entrepreneurs may represent first steps in the right direction. The findings of Invest-NPO may contribute to the development of further steps.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in general practice: mismatch between cardiovascular risk and patients' risk perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasize identifying high-risk patients for more intensive management, but patients' misconceptions of risk hamper implementation. Insight is needed into the type of patients that general practitioners (GPs) encounter in their cardiovascular prevention activities. How appropriate are the risk perceptions and worries of patients with whom GPs discuss CVD risks? What determines inappropriate risk perception? METHOD: Cross-sectional study in 34 general practices. The study included patients aged 40 to 70 years with whom CVD risk was discussed during consultation. After the consultation, the GPs completed a registration form, and patients completed a questionnaire. Correlations between patients' actual CVD risk and risk perceptions were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 490 patients were included. In 17% of the consultations, patients were actually at high risk. Risk was perceived inappropriately by nearly 4 in 5 high-risk patients (incorrect optimism) and by 1 in 5 low-risk patients (incorrect pessimism). Smoking, hypertension, and obesity were determinants of perceiving CVD risk as high, whereas surprisingly, diabetic patients did not report any anxiety about their CVD risk. Men were more likely to perceive their CVD risk inappropriately than women. CONCLUSION: In communicating CVD risk, GPs must be aware that they mostly encounter low-risk patients and that the perceived risk and worry do not necessarily correspond with the actual risk. Incorrect perceptions of CVD risk among men and patients with diabetes were striking.

A Delphi technique as a method for selecting the content of an electronic patient record for asthma.

INTRODUCTION: An electronic patient record (EPR) with disease-specific data may support improvement of the quality of care for patients with chronic diseases. The structure and content of such a record can only be assessed by clinicians in co-operation with IT-specialists, because, the result has to be clinically relevant, easily accessible and adjusted to the information needs of different workers in primary care. METHODS: We applied a modified Delphi-procedure--a method characterized by anonymous written comments by an expert panel. The panel had to agree about the question whether or not an item should be included in the EPR. The questions for the written comments were prepared by a steering committee (general practitioners (GP) and health scientists, either expert in asthma and disease management or IT-specialist) based on the guidelines for diagnosing and treating asthma of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (DCGP). When agreement within the panel was < or = 70%, we sent a modified format to the expert panel for reassessment. RESULTS: Three written commentary rounds were necessary, in which 95 potential items were discussed with the expert panel. In the first round they selected 50 items relating to diagnosing asthma and 22 concerning the treatment of asthma. During the second round 17 items were still under discussion and six were rejected. In subsequent rounds, the expert-panel assessed the best registration format (operationalisation). The written rounds failed to create a full consensus. Therefore the study ended with a consensus meeting of the expert panel. Due to the presence and contribution of nearly all experts, consensus could be reached about the structure and contents of the EPR on asthma. DISCUSSION: The modified Delphi procedure, proved to be a feasible method for selecting the optimal content of an electronic registration protocol. Both, written and verbal commentary rounds were necessary. The existence of a set of guidelines was essential.