Health care in the Netherlands.

This article analyzes Dutch experiences of health care reform--in particular in primary care--with emphasis on lessons for current United States health care reforms. Recent major innovations were the introduction of private insurance based on the principles of primary care-led health care and including all citizens irrespective of their financial, employment, or health status; introduction of primary care collaboratives for out-of-hour services and chronic disease management; and primary care team building, including practice nurses. These innovations were introduced on top of a strong primary care tradition of family practices with defined populations based on patient panels, practice-based research, evidence-based medicine, large-scale computerization, and strong primary care health informatics. Dutch health reform redirected payment to support introduction of innovative health plans and strengthening of primary care to respond to public health objectives. Five recommendations for US primary care follow from this Dutch experience: (1) a private insurance model is compatible with thriving primary care, but it must include all people, especially the most vulnerable in society, and espouse a primary care-led health care system; (2) patient panels or practice lists strengthen continuity of care and community orientation to focus on and respond to local needs; (3) reward collaboration within primary care and between primary care, hospital care, and public health; (4) stimulate primary care professionals to exert their passion and expertise through participation in primary care research and development; and (5) health informatics should be primary care based, preferably adopting the International Classification of Primary Care. With these recommendations, it will be possible for the United States to obtain better population health for its population.

Staphylococcus aureus carriage among GPs in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which GPs serve as a reservoir for antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is unknown and not well studied. AIM: To determine the prevalence of nasal S. aureus carriage among GPs in the Netherlands, as well as the antimicrobial resistance and the genotypes of isolated S. aureus. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational, point-prevalence, and cross-sectional study. SETTING: GPs attending the annual conference of the Dutch College of General Practitioners in 2006. METHOD: Nasal swabs were randomly taken from 395 GPs and analysed for the presence of S. aureus. Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined by a microbroth dilution method and the genotypes by spa typing, which was associated with multilocus sequence typing. RESULTS: Of the GPs, 129/395 (33%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28 to 37%) were carriers of S. aureus. No meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was found. Resistance was observed to penicillin (71%; 95% CI = 63 to 79%), fusidic acid (7%; 95% CI = 3 to 13%), and clarithromycin (6%; 95% CI = 3 to 12%). In 72% of the isolates, an MRSA-related genotype of S. aureus was found. CONCLUSION: The low antibiotic resistance found among S. aureus of GPs suggests that GPs are not a reservoir of antibiotic-resistant S. aureus strains. The relatively high resistance to fusidic acid, which has not previously been described in the Netherlands and is mostly because of antibiotic use, suggests that patients infect GPs and not the other way round. GPs may be at risk for nasal carriage of S. aureus with an MRSA-related genotype.

Familiarity between patient and general practitioner does not influence the content of the consultation.

BACKGROUND: Personal continuity in general practice is considered to be a prerequisite of high quality patient care based on shared knowledge and mutual understanding. Not much is known about how personal continuity is reflected in the content of GP - patient communication. We explored whether personal continuity of care influences the content of communication during the consultation. METHODS: Personal continuity was defined as the degree of familiarity between GP and patient, rated by both the GP and the patient. 394 videotaped consultations between GPs and patients aged 18 years and older were analyzed. GP - patient communication was evaluated with an observation checklist, which rated the following topics of conversation: (1) medical issues, (2) psychological themes, and (3) the social environment of the patient. For each of these topics we coded whether or not it received attention, and was built upon prior knowledge. Data were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: No relationship was found between GP - patient familiarity and the discussion of medical issues, psychological themes, or the social environment of the patient. But if the patient and the GP knew each other very well, the GP more often displayed prior knowledge with the topic in question. Few patient and GP characteristics were associated with differences in content of communication. CONCLUSION: Given the relatively small sample size, we carefully conclude that familiarity between a GP and a patient does not influence the content of the communication (medical issues, psychological themes nor topics relating to the social environment). This is remarkable because we expected that familiarity would 'open up the communication' for more psychological and social themes. GPs seem to have the communication skills to put both familiar and non-familiar patients at ease enabling them to freely raise any issue they think necessary.

Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners. METHODS: General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations.