De werkbelasting van huisartsen in internationaal perspectief

Let’s talk about sex: exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

Background

Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data.

Results

Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%).

Conclusions

This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD.

Communication of an Abnormal Metabolic New-Born Screening Result in The Netherlands: The Parental Perspective

In the Netherlands, abnormal New-Born Screening (NBS) results are communicated to parents by the general practitioner (GP). Good communication and consequential trust in professionals is of the utmost importance in the treatment of phenylketonuria (PKU). The aim of this study was to assess parental satisfaction regarding the communication of an abnormal NBS result for PKU in the Netherlands. An email containing the link to a web-based questionnaire was sent by the Dutch PKU Association to their members. Responses to open questions were categorized, data of both open and closed questions were analysed with descriptive statistics and the Chi-Square test using SPSS. Out of 113 parents of a child with PKU (born between 1979 and 2020), 68 stated they were overall unsatisfied with the first communication of the NBS result. Seventy-five parents indicated that wrong or no information about PKU was given. A significant decrease was found in the number of parents being contact by their own GP over the course of 40 years (p < 0.05). More than half of all parents were overall unsatisfied with the first communication of the abnormal NBS result for PKU. Further research on how to optimize communication of an abnormal NBS results is necessary.

The introduction of advanced practice physiotherapy within Dutch primary care is a quest for possibilities, added value, and mutual trust: a qualitative study amongst advanced practice physiotherapists and general practitioners

Background

Despite the increased deployment and added value of Advanced Practitioner Physiotherapy (APP) in musculoskeletal care internationally, APP is not yet widely accepted within Dutch primary care. This may be due to specific constraints in the implementation of APP within the Dutch healthcare system. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of Advanced Practitioner Physiotherapists (APPs) and General Practitioners (GPs) with respect to implementing APP within Dutch primary care.

Methods

This explorative and interpretive qualitative study included 12 APPs and 3 GPs who were in various stages of implementing an APP care model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2021. The topic list was based on existing literature, the personal input of researchers, and the Constellation Approach framework. Data were analysed using a thematic inductive approach.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the data; 1) Both GPs’ trust in APP and a clear added value of APP are critical for starting implementation, 2) APPs need continuous support from GPs, 3) APPs believe that their position needs strengthening, and 4) Implementation of the APP model creates tension over ownership. These four themes highlight the perceived difficulties in gaining trust, lack of clarity over the added value of APP, ambiguity over APPs’ professional profile and positioning, a need on behalf of GPs to maintain authority, lack of reimbursement structure, and the struggle APPs face to strike a balance with current care.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that implementing an APP model of care is challenging, in part, because the deployment of APP does not sufficiently align with the core values of GPs, while GPs appear reluctant to hand over control of elements of patient care to APPs. APPs do not appear to have ownership over the implementation, given their strong dependence on the practice, values and needs of GPs.

Trial registration

Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Centre in Amsterdam; reference number 2020.17 . All participants were asked to provide written informed consent prior to participating in the study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07906-6.

The association between the workload of general practitioners and patient experiences with care: results of a cross-sectional study in 33 countries

BACKGROUND

The workload of general practitioners (GPs) and dissatisfaction with work have been increasing in various Western countries over the past decades. In this study, we evaluate the relation between the workload of GPs and patients' experiences with care.

METHODS

We collected data through a cross-sectional survey among 7031 GPs and 67,873 patients in 33 countries. Dependent variables are the patient experiences on doctor-patient communication, accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care. Independent variables concern the workload measured as the GP-reported work hours per week, average consultation times, job satisfaction (an indicator of subjective workload), and the difference between the workload measures of every GP and the average in their own country. Finally, we evaluated interaction effects between workload measures and what patients find important in a country and the presence of a patient-list system. Relationships were determined through multilevel regression models.

RESULTS

Patients of GPs who are happier with their work were found to experience better communication, continuity, access, and comprehensiveness. When GPs are more satisfied compared to others in their country, patients also experience better quality. When GPs work more hours per week, patients also experience better quality of care, but not in the area of accessibility. A longer consultation time, also when compared to the national average, is only related to more comprehensive care. There are no differences in the relationships between countries with and without a patient list system and in countries where patients find the different quality aspects more important.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experience better care when their GP has more work hours, longer consultation times, and especially, a higher job satisfaction.

Primary care workforce development in Europe: An overview of health system responses and stakeholder views

Better primary care has become a key strategy for reforming health systems to respond effectively to increases in non-communicable diseases and changing population needs, yet the primary care workforce has received very little attention. This article aligns primary care policy and workforce development in European countries. The aim is to provide a comparative overview of the governance of workforce innovation and the views of the main stakeholders. Cross-country comparisons and an explorative case study design are applied. We combine material from different European projects to analyse health system responses to changing primary care workforce needs, transformations in the general practitioner workforce and patient views on workforce changes. The results reveal a lack of alignment between primary care reform policies and workforce policies and high variation in the governance of primary care workforce innovation. Transformations in the general practitioner workforce only partly follow changing population needs; countries vary considerably in supporting and achieving the goals of integration and community orientation. Yet patients who have experienced task shifting in their care express overall positive views on new models. In conclusion, synthesising available evidence from different projects contributes new knowledge on policy levers and reveals an urgent need for health system leadership in developing an integrated people-centred primary care workforce.

Discontinuation of the PACE Plus trial: problems in patient recruitment in general practice

BACKGROUND

The PACE Plus trial was a multi-center, double-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in patients from Dutch general practice to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in acute non-specific low back pain (LBP). Because insufficient numbers of patients could be recruited (only four out of the required 800 patients could be recruited over a period of 6 months), the trial was prematurely terminated in February 2017, 6 months after the start of recruitment. This article aims to transparently communicate the discontinuation of PACE Plus and to make recommendations for future studies.

METHODS

General Practitioners (GPs) from 36 participating practices received a one-question survey in which they were asked to give the three most important factors that in their opinion contributed to failure of patient recruitment.

RESULTS

GPs of 33 out of 36 (92%) participating practices sent a response. A total of 81 factors were reported. These have been categorized into patient factors (26 out of 81 comments, 32%), GP factors (39 out of 81 comments, 48%) and research factors (16 out of 81 comments, 20%).

DISCUSSION

Patient recruitment in the PACE Plus trial may have failed due to inefficient medication distribution, recruitment of incident rather than prevalent cases, a design that was too complicated, adequate self-management of LBP, patient expectations different from the trial's scope and lack of time of participating GPs. Substantial differences in design may explain why the preceding PACE trial did manage to successfully complete patient recruitment.

CONCLUSION

Although the PACE Plus trial was terminated as a result of insufficient patient inclusion, the research questions addressed in this trial remain relevant but unanswered. We hope that lessons learned from the discontinuation of PACE Plus and corresponding recommendations may be helpful in the design of upcoming research projects in LBP in general practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089, registered September 14th 2016.

Exploring the feasibility of new Dutch mental health policy within a large primary health care centre: a case study

BACKGROUND

A reform of Dutch mental health care aimed to substitute care from specialized care to general practice. Since 1 January 2014, Dutch general practitioners (GPs) are no longer allowed to refer patients without a psychiatric disorder to mental health care. Patients with non-complex psychological problems should be treated within general practice.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of the Dutch mental health policy.

METHODS

We conducted an observational case study in a primary health care centre in 2014. The health care centre was a convenience sample; the participating GPs reorganized mental health care in line with the upcoming policy, and invited the researchers to monitor their referrals. We assessed how many patients with mental health problems (n = 408) were allocated to policy-concordant treatment. Additionally, 137 patients (33%) completed a follow up assessment on mental health problems 3 months after baseline.

RESULTS

The majority of the patients were allocated to treatment in line with the policy. Almost half of the patients (42%) were treated in a setting that was exactly policy-concordant, while the other half (47%) was treated in a setting that was even less specialized than was allowed. In general, patients showed improvement after 3 months, regardless of (non) policy-concordant treatment. Attrition rate after 3 months was high, probably due to the practical study design.

CONCLUSION

There is potential for substitution of mental health care. Since the studied health care centre was specialized in mental health care, further research should explore if similar results can be found in other general practices.

Primary care management of women with breast cancer-related concerns-a dynamic cohort study using a network database

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, management and diagnostic outcomes of breast cancer-related concerns presented in primary care. A dynamic cohort study was performed in the anonymised routine electronic medical records (EMRs) extracted from 49 General Practices in the Netherlands (163,471 person-years, women aged 18-75). Main Outcome Measures were: (1) incidence rates for breast cancer-related concerns in Primary Care, (2) proportions of these women with and without symptoms of the breast referred for further investigation, (3) proportions of referrals (not) according to the guideline and (4) proportions of women with breast cancer-related concerns diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Breast cancer-related concerns are presented frequently in Primary Care (incidence rate 25.9 per 1,000 women annually). About half these women are referred for further investigation. There is room to improve General Practitioner management, mainly for women with an increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Information concerning family history of cancer is often missing in the EMR. Since cancer is rarely diagnosed during follow-up, particularly when symptoms are absent, reduction of unnecessary concerns is plausible if identification of those without an increased risk is improved.