Development of a maturity matrix to assess organizational readiness of community pharmacies for implementation of guideline recommendations in diabetes care.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmaceutical care for people with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DMT2) has been described in professional guidelines. To apply their recommendations, organizational changes are needed. We aimed to describe, for the first time, the development of a maturity matrix for community pharmacy teams (MM-CP) to assess organizational readiness in implementing the guideline recommendations on pharmaceutical DMT2 care. METHODS: MM-CP development was conducted in a systematic consensus process with pharmacists from existing working groups. In three meetings with preparatory assignments, mutually exclusive domains were chosen for the DMT2 guideline implementation. After determining the growth steps, the resulting matrix cells were filled with examples of the organizational implementation activities. To explore the generalizability of domains and growth steps, two other working groups for "medication surveillance" and "multidose drug dispensing" guidelines were consulted. KEY FINDINGS: A five-by-five matrix was developed using the domains "personalized care," "teamwork," "information systems and data exchange," "external collaboration," and "education and research" on the horizontal axis, and the growth steps "being aware and motivated," "being able to," "performing, evaluating and improving," and "innovating" on the vertical axis. The MM-CP cells were filled with examples to implement the core recommendations of the DMT2 guideline. The matrix is to be used by pharmacy teams as a formative instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The MM-CP is ready for use by community pharmacy teams for self-assessing their organizational readiness. However, further research is required to evaluate its potential in stimulating targeted improvement during the implementation of the DMT2-guideline recommendations in community pharmacies.

Design and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Interprofessional Collaborative Practice for Auditing Integrated Hospital Care: Empirical Research.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional teamwork is the key issue of delivering integrated hospital care; however, measuring interprofessional collaboration for auditing is fragmented. In this study, a questionnaire to measure InterProfessional collaborative Practice for Integrated Hospital care (IPPIH) has been developed and validated. METHODS: A four-step iterative process was conducted: (1) literature search to find suitable questionnaires; (2) semistructured stakeholder interviews (individual and in focus groups) to discuss the topics and questions (face validity), (3) pretesting the prototype of the questionnaire in two different integrated care pathways for feasibility, usability, and internal consistency, and (4) testing (content and construct validity and responsiveness) of the revised questionnaire in eight integrated care pathways; the validation and responsiveness was tested by means of exploratory factor analysis, calculation of Cronbach alpha, item analysis, and linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: Based on six questionnaires and the opinion of direct stakeholders, the questionnaire IPPIH comprised 27 items. Five different domains could be distinguished: own skills, culture, coordination and collaboration, practical support, and appreciation with the Cronbach alpha varied from 0.91 to 0.48. The self-reported intensity of the collaboration within a specific care pathway significantly influenced the outcome (P = .000). CONCLUSION: The product is a questionnaire, IPPIH, which can measure the degree of interprofessional collaborative practice in integrated hospital care pathways. The IPPIH was initially developed for quality assurance. However, the IPPIH also seems to be suitable as a self-assessment tool for directors to monitor and improve the interprofessional collaboration and the quality of their integrated care pathway.

The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer: Tumor-First or Germline-First?

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing. METHODS: Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated. RESULTS: Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986). CONCLUSIONS: The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.

Struggling with the governance of interprofessional elderly care in mandated collaboratives: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Governing interprofessional elderly care requires the commitment of many different organisations connected in mandated collaboratives. Research over a decade ago showed that the governance relied on clan-based mechanisms, while lacking formal rules and incentives for collaborations. Awareness and reflection were seen as first steps towards progression. We aim to identify critical governance features of contemporary mandated collaboratives by discussing cases introduced by the healthcare professionals and managers themselves. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with two regional mandated collaboratives took place from November 2019 to November 2020 in the Netherlands to learn more about critical governance features. The interviews were thematically analysed by the project team (authors) to synthesise the results and were subsequently validated during a focus group. RESULTS: Critical governance features of interorganisational activities in mandated collaboratives include the gradual formulation of shared vision and clear client-centred goals, building trust and acquaintanceship for the advancement of an open collaborative culture, establishing a non-extreme formalised governance structure through leadership, mutual trust and innovation support and facilitating information exchange and formalisation tools for optimal elderly care. CONCLUSION: Trust and leadership form the backbone of interorganisational functioning. Interorganisational functioning should be seen in light of their national embedment and resources that are (being made) available, which makes them susceptible to constant change as they struggle with balancing between critical features in a fluid and intermingled governance context. The identified critical features of (contemporary) mandated collaboratives may aid in assessing and improving interprofessional functioning within integrated elderly care. International debate on governance expectations of mandated collaboratives may further contribute to sharpening the roles of both managers and healthcare professionals.

Supporting care engagement in primary care; the development of a maturity matrix.

BACKGROUND: Care engagement or active patient involvement in healthcare contributes to the quality of primary care, but organisational preconditions in routine practice need to be aligned. A Maturity Matrix for Care Engagement to assess and discuss these preconditions in the general practice team was developed and tested on feasibility and acceptability in general practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic user-centred approach was applied, starting with a scoping literature search to describe the domains on the horizontal axis of the maturity matrix. The domains and growing steps (vertical axis) were refined by patients (n = 16) and general practice staff (n = 11) in three focus group discussions and reviewed by six experts (local facilitators and scientists). Seven domains could be distinguished: Personalised Care, Shared Decision Making, Self-Management, Patient as Partner, Supportive Means, Patient Environment, and Teamwork among Healthcare Professionals. The growing steps described three to six activities per domain (n = 32 in total) that contribute to care engagement. Local facilitators implemented the tool in two general practice teams according to a user guide, starting with a two-hour kick-off meeting on care engagement. In the next step, practitioners, nurses and assistants in each practice indicated their score on the domains individually. The scores were discussed in the facilitated practice meeting which was aimed at SMART improvement plans. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed in interviews showing that the tool was well received by the pilot practices, although the practice assistants had difficulties scoring some of the activities as they did not always relate to their daily work. An assessment after three months showed changes in practice organisation towards increased care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The maturity matrix on care engagement is a tool to identify the organisational practice maturity for care engagement. Suggested adaptations must be implemented before large-scale testing.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementation of universal tumor DNA testing in ovarian cancer patients: multidisciplinary focus groups.

Universal tumor DNA testing in epithelial ovarian cancer patients can function not only as an efficient prescreen for hereditary cancer testing, but may also guide treatment choices. This innovation, introduced as Tumor-First workflow, offers great opportunities, but ensuring optimal multidisciplinary collaboration is a challenge. We investigated factors that were relevant and important for large-scale implementation. In three multidisciplinary online focus groups, healthcare professionals (gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, and clinical laboratory specialists) were interviewed on factors critical for the implementation of the Tumor-First workflow. Recordings were transcribed for analysis in Atlas.ti according to the framework of Flottorp that categorizes seven implementation domains. Healthcare professionals from all disciplines endorse implementation of the Tumor-First workflow, but more detailed standardization and advice regarding the logistics of the workflow were needed. Healthcare professionals explored ways to stay informed about the different phases of the workflow and the results. They emphasized the importance of including all epithelial ovarian cancer patients in the workflow and monitoring this inclusion. Overall, healthcare professionals would appreciate supporting material for the implementation of the Tumor-First workflow in the daily work routine. Focus group discussions have revealed factors for developing a tailored implementation strategy for the Tumor-First workflow in order to optimize care for epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Future innovations affecting multidisciplinary oncology teams including clinical geneticists can benefit from the lessons learned.

[Preoperative geriatric screening in care path 'AAA']. / Preoperatieve geriatrische screening in zorgpad 'AAA'.

AIM: Determining the added value of preoperative geriatric screening (POGS) in the care path 'Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm'. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study in a university hospital. METHOD: For patients (>60 years) with non-acute aortic pathology, data on preoperative screening (including frailty measures) and treatment was automatically generated from medical records for the period 2018-2021 (42 months). Data has been analysed with descriptive and test statistics. Completeness of the data was checked manually by reading the medical files for the period 2020-2021 (24 months). RESULTS: A total of 343 cases were included; POGS was performed in 90 patients (26%). In 84.2% of the cases the vascular surgeon adhered to the geriatrician's advice. In the other cases, the treatment is less (10.5%) or more (5.3%) intrusive than the POGS advice; the patient's preference seems to be particular decisive here. The geriatric advice is most consistent with the measures from the Clinical Frailty Scale. From the manual data collection, we learned that about 20% of the POGS were missing. CONCLUSION: Introducing geriatric screening in the care pathway is likely to lead to a more considered choice by healthcare professionals as well as patients. The added value seems embraced by geriatricians and vascular surgeons as the adherence to the geriatric advice is strong. A cardiovascular nurse can use the Clinical Frailty Scale to select the patients that really need a geriatric advice. The advice is to include POGS in the care path 'Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm' and possibly also in other care paths.

Uniform Registration Agreements on Cholesteatoma Care: A Nationwide Consensus Procedure.

BACKGROUND: To coordinate and align the content for registration of cholesteatoma care. METHODS: Systematic Delphi consensus procedure, consisting three rounds: two written sessions followed by a face-to-face meeting. Before this procedure, input on important patient outcomes was obtained. Consensus was defined as at least 80% agreement by participants. Hundred-thirty-six adult patients who had undergone cholesteatoma surgery and all ENT surgeons of the Dutch ENT Society were invited. The consensus rounds were attended by ENT surgeons with cholesteatoma surgery experience. Feasibility and acceptability of outcome measures and reporting agreements were assessed in round 1 by 150 ENT surgeons. In round 2 definitions were narrowed and context information to interpret outcome measure were questioned. In round 3, the results, amendments, and the open-ended points were discussed to reach agreement. RESULTS: Most important outcome measures are: 1) the presence or absence of a cholesteatoma in the first 5 years after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, 2) hearing level after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, and 3) the documented assessment of patient's complaints with a validated patient reported outcome measures questionnaire (PROM). Furthermore, consensus was reached on the registration of cholesteatoma type (residual/recurrent), localization of cholesteatoma, and reporting of the presence of cholesteatoma in the follow-up. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on the content and method of registration of cholesteatoma care based on patient's and ENT surgeons input. Three outcome measures were defined. National agreements on the method and content of registration will facilitate monitoring and feedback to the ENT surgeon about the cholesteatoma care.

The differences between three performance measures on dental restorations, clinical success, survival and failure: A matter of perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective methodology study was to investigate the influence of using different definitions for restoration failure and inclusion criteria on restoration longevity expressed in AFR. METHODS: EPF from fifteen general dental practices were used for collecting the data for this study. From the EPF, 321,749 composite restorations placed in 52,245 patients by forty-seven GDPs between January 2000 and December 2011 were included. Kaplan-Meier statistics were applied and mean AFRs over 2, 5 and 10 years were calculated. The effect on the AFR of using different levels of failure: based on Claims data (CD), Success (SUC), Survival (SUR) and different inclusion criteria of tooth/restoration variables were reported. RESULTS: Highest AFRs were found for level CD, in which every intervention was considered as failure, and the lowest AFRs for level SUR in which repairs and an endodontic treatments were not considered as a failure. AFRs increased when the observation period prolonged especially for SUR, followed by SUC and CD. An overview of long-term survival studies showed a wide variation in study design, performed clinical examination (USPHS criteria or GDP), number of restorations included, description of restoration failure and found AFRs for CD, SUC and SUR. SIGNIFICANCE: Using failure criteria, Success and Survival, in future clinical studies would enable a better comparison of studies as well as demonstrate the impact of more conservative restorative intervention protocols on patient care.

Development of a framework with tools to support the selection and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) provide information on a patient's health status coming directly from the patient. Measuring PROs with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has gained wide interest in clinical practice for individual patient care, as well as in quality improvement, and for providing transparency of outcomes to stakeholders through public reporting. However, current knowledge of selecting and implementing PROMs for these purposes is scattered, and not readily available for clinicians and quality managers in healthcare organizations. The objective of this study is to develop a framework with tools to support the systematic selection, implementation and evaluation of PROs and PROMs in individual patient care, for quality improvement and public reporting. METHODS: We developed the framework in a national project in the Netherlands following a user-centered design. The development process of the framework contained five iterative components: (a) identification of existing tools, (b) identification of user requirements and designing steps for selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs, (c) discussing a prototype of the framework during a national workshop, (d) developing a web version, (e) pre-testing of the framework. A total of 40 users with different perspectives (clinicians, patient representatives, quality managers, purchasers, researchers) have been consulted. RESULTS: The final framework is presented as the PROM-cycle that consists of eight steps in four phases: (1) goal setting, (2) selecting PROs and PROMs, (3) developing and testing of quality indicator(s), (4) implementing and evaluating the PROM(s) and indicator(s). Users emphasized that the first step is the key element in which the why, for whom and setting of the PROM has to be defined. This information is decisive for the following steps. For each step the PROM-cycle provides guidance and tools, with instruments, checklists, methods, handbooks, and standards supporting the process. CONCLUSION: We developed a framework to support the selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs. Each step provides guidance and tools to support the process. The PROM-cycle and its tools are publicly available and can be used by clinicians, quality managers, patient representatives and other experts involved in using PROMS. Through periodic evaluation and updates, tools will be added for national and international use of the PROM-cycle.

Minimally Invasive Intervention for Primary Caries Lesions: Are Dentists Implementing This Concept?

Contemporary minimally invasive treatment concepts for restorative treatment of primary caries lesions include both delayed intervention and smaller-sized preparations restricted to removal of carious tissue. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these concepts have resulted in a trend towards a more conservative choice made by dentists regarding treatment thresholds and restorative techniques. The results from previously conducted, precoded questionnaires developed by Espelid and Tveit, as well as from a recent Dutch questionnaire, were collected and analysed. A worldwide trend towards more minimally invasive strategies in the operative treatment of caries lesions could not be observed, neither for the initiation of operative treatment nor for the preparation techniques. However, in some countries, changes over time could be assessed, especially in Norway, where a reduction in the proportion of interventions is visible for both occlusal and approximal lesions, indicating that more dentists are postponing interventions until the lesions have progressed to a deeper level. From the Dutch national survey, it could be concluded that operators that intervene at an earlier stage of approximal lesioning (stage ≤4) also intervene at an earlier stage of occlusal caries (stage ≤3) (p = 0.012; OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.22-5.22). Generally, it can be concluded that dentists worldwide still tend to operatively intervene at a too early stage of caries, although variations exist between countries. A worldwide shift could be observed in the restorative material applied, since composite resin has almost completely replaced amalgam for restoring primary caries lesions.

Variation in Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care: Impact of Patient and Hospital Characteristics.

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients' perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%-98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%-100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement.

The development of a collective quality system: challenges and lessons learned; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing professionalization of medical education means that quality systems (QSs) aimed at improving medical education also continuously have to improve. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a collective QS for eight Dutch General Practitioner (GP) specialty training institutes to provide insights into the considerations that are involved in developing a QS in medical education. METHODS: Experts in the field of GP education and quality assurance developed the QS. They studied the literature, prior QSs and involved stakeholders. The team interviewed the directors, and all meetings and steps in the development process were transcribed. All interviews and relevant documentation were analyzed. Results were checked by the developers. RESULTS: Stakeholders agreed on the goals, the relevance of the resulting domains, and the methods to assess. However, one major theme emerged. To enable benchmarking, the team developed detailed quantifiable indicators. Especially the development of these indicators gave discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Involving stakeholders was crucial as they directed the development of the QS. The framework of the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) provided guidance in covering all the relevant processes. The major challenge consisted of formulating indicators. Our experience indicates that the process of quantifying indicators is not straightforward. The detailed level of the indicators chosen is perhaps not always suitable for QSs in the field of medical education.

The implementation of a quality system in the Dutch GP specialty training: barriers and facilitators; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Quality assurance programs in medical education are introduced to gain insight into the quality of such programs and to trigger improvements. Although of utmost importance, research on the implementation of such programs is scarce. The Dutch General Practice (GP) specialty training institutes used an implementation strategy to implement a quality system (QS), and we aimed to study the success of this strategy and to learn about additional facilitators and barriers. METHODS: Seventeen structured interviews were conducted with the directors and quality coordinators (QCs) of the eight Dutch GP training institutes. A five-stage process model of implementation was used to structure these interviews and analyze the data. Two researchers analyzed the data with a framework approach. RESULTS: The strategy supported the institutes in implementing the QS. However, after the introduction of the QS, staff experienced the QS as demanding, although they noticed almost no concrete short-term results. Moreover, they experienced difficulties in integrating the QS into their local situation. Collectively working with the QS and following common deadlines did create a sense of commitment towards each other that appeared to be a true stimulus to the introduction of the QS. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategy focused mainly on the introduction of the QS in the GP specialty training, and it was, as such, rather successful. An important barrier concerned the acceptance of the QS and the integration of the QS into local structures, which suggests that there is a need for guidance on the translation of the QS to local contexts. All in all, we recommend more focus on the benefits of a QS.

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. METHODS: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: "Why," "On what aspects" and "How" do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? RESULTS: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.

Data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) for quality measurement of the physical therapy process: comparison between EHR data and survey data.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of the electronic health records (EHRs) as a pervasive healthcare information technology, new opportunities and challenges for use of clinical data for quality measurements arise with respect to data quality, data availability and comparability. The objective of this study is to test whether data extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) was of comparable quality as survey data for the calculation of quality indicators. METHODS: Data from surveys describing patient cases and filled out by physiotherapists in 2009-2010 were used to calculate scores on eight quality indicators (QIs) to measure the quality of physiotherapy care. In 2011, data was extracted directly from EHRs. The data collection methods were evaluated for comparability. EHR data was compared to survey data on completeness and correctness. RESULTS: Five of the eight QIs could be extracted from the EHRs. Three were omitted from the indicator set, as they proved too difficult to be extracted from the EHRs. Another QI proved incomparable due to errors in the extraction software of some of the EHRs. Three out of four comparable QIs performed better (p < 0.001) in EHR data on completeness. EHR data also proved to be correct; the relative change in indicator scores between EHR and survey data were small (<5 %) in three out of four QIs. CONCLUSION: Data quality of EHRs was sufficient to be used for the calculation of QIs, although comparability to survey data was problematic. Standardization is needed, not only to be able to compare different data collection methods properly, but also to compare between practices with different EHRs. EHRs have the option to administrate narrative data, but natural language processing tools are needed to quantify these text boxes. Such development, can narrow the comparability gap between scoring QIs based on EHR data and based on survey data. EHRs have the potential to provide real time feedback to professionals and quality measurements for research, but more effort is needed to create unambiguous and uniform information and to unlock written text in a standardized manner.

Patient experiences with family medicine: a longitudinal study after the Dutch health care reforms in 2006.

BACKGROUND: In 2006 The Dutch Health Care system changed to a market oriented system. The GP remuneration changed from ± 2/3 capitation patients and 1/3 private patients before 2006 to a mixed payment scheme. From 2006 onward every patient was insured and the GP received partly capitation, partly fees for consultations and for specific services. This change coincided with many other organisational changes in General Practice care. Our research question was if during the years after 2006 patient experiences of Dutch family practice had changed. We also wanted to explore the influence of patient and practice characteristics on patient experiences. Data on patient experiences were available from 2007 to 2012. METHOD: In a series of annual cross sectional patient surveys the performance of GPs and practices was measured. Patient sampling took place as a part of the Dutch accreditation program in 1657 practices involving 2966 GPs. Patients' experiences, gender, age, health status, and number of annual consultations were documented as well as the type and location of practices. Linear regression analysis was used to examine time trends in patient experiences and the impact of patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: 78,985 patients assessed the performance of 2966 GPs, and 45,773 patients assessed the organisation of 1657 practices. The number of patients with positive experiences increased significantly between 2007 and 2012; respectively 4.8 % for GPs (beta 0.20 and p < 0.0001) and 6.6 % for practices (beta 0.10, p < 0.004). Higher age, having no chronic illness, more frequent consultations and attending single-handed practices, predicted better patient experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In our evaluation of patient experiences with general practice care from 2007 to 2012 we found an increase of 4.8 % for GPs and 6.6 % for practices respectively. This improvement is significant. While no direct causation can be made, possible explanations may be found in the various reforms in Dutch family practice since 2006. More insight is needed into key determinants of this improvement before policymakers and care providers can attribute the improvement to these reforms.

The Reasons behind the (Non)Use of Feedback Reports for Quality Improvement in Physical Therapy: A Mixed-Method Study.

OBJECTIVES: To explain the use of feedback reports for quality improvements by the reasons to participate in quality measuring projects and to identify barriers and facilitators. DESIGN: Mixed methods design. METHODS: In 2009-2011 a national audit and feedback system for physical therapy (Qualiphy) was initiated in the Netherlands. After each data collection round, an evaluation survey was held amongst its participants. The evaluation survey data was used to explain the use of feedback reports by studying the reasons to participate with Qualiphy with correlation measures and logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews with PTs served to seek confirmation and disentangle barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Analysis of 257 surveys (response rate: 42.8%) showed that therapists with only financial reasons were less likely to use feedback reports (OR = 0.24;95%CI = 0.11-0.52) compared to therapists with a mixture of reasons. PTs in 2009 and 2010 were more likely to use the feedback reports for quality improvement than PTs in 2011 (OR = 2.41;95%CI = 1.25-4.64 respectively OR = 3.28;95%CI = 1.51-7.10). Changing circumstances in 2011, i.e. using EHRs and financial incentives, had a negative effect on the use of feedback reports (OR = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.20-0.78). Interviews with 12 physical therapists showed that feedback reports could serve as a tool to support and structure quality improvement plans. Barriers were distrust and perceived self-reporting bias on indicator scores. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing financial incentives that are not well-specified and well-targeted can have an adverse effect on using feedback reports to improve quality of care. Distrust is a major barrier to implementing quality systems.

Medication management strategy for older people with polypharmacy in general practice: a qualitative study on prescribing behaviour in primary care.

BACKGROUND: For older patients with polypharmacy, medication management is a process of careful deliberation that needs periodic adjustment based on treatment effects and changing conditions. Because of the heterogeneity of the patient group, and limited applicability of current guidelines, it is difficult for GPs to build up a routine. AIM: To gain insight into GPs' medication management strategies for patients with polypharmacy, and to explore the GPs' perspectives and needs on decision-making support to facilitate this medication management. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two focus group meetings with Dutch GPs, discussing four clinical vignettes of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD: Questions about medication management of the vignettes were answered individually; the strategy chosen in each case was discussed in plenary. Analysis followed a Framework approach. RESULTS: In total, 12 GPs described a similar strategy regarding the patients' medication management: defining treatment goals; determining primary goals; and adjusting medications based on the treatment effect, GPs' and patients' preferences, and patient characteristics. There was variation in the execution of this strategy between the GPs. The GPs would like to discuss their choices with other professionals and they valued structured medication reviews with the patient, as well as quick and practical support tools that work on demand. CONCLUSION: To facilitate decision making, a more extensive and structured collaboration between healthcare professionals is desired, as well as support to execute structured medication reviews with eligible patients, and some on-demand tools for individual consultations.

Inter-practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence amongst older patients in primary care.

PURPOSE: Complex medication management in older people with multiple chronic conditions can introduce practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence. This study aimed to determine the inter-practice variation in polypharmacy prevalence and examine how this variation was influenced by patient and practice characteristics. METHODS: This cohort study included 45,731 patients aged 55 years and older with at least one prescribed medication from 126 general practices that participated in NIVEL Primary Care Database in the Netherlands. Medication dispensing data of the year 2012 were used to determine polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was defined as the chronic and simultaneous use of at least five different medications. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to quantify the polypharmacy prevalence variation between practices. Patient characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, number, and type of chronic conditions) and practice characteristics (practice location and practice population) were added to the models. RESULTS: After accounting for differences in patient and practice characteristics, polypharmacy rates varied with a factor of 2.4 between practices (from 12.4% to 30.1%) and an overall mean of 19.8%. Age and type of conditions were highly positively associated with polypharmacy, and to a lesser extent a lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in polypharmacy rates existed between general practices, even after accounting for patient and practice characteristics, which suggests that there is not much agreement concerning medication management in this complex patient group. Initiatives that could reduce inappropriate heterogeneity in medication management can add value to the care delivered to these patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.