Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Grol

Publications and source records attributed to R Grol.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction.

Physicians today are confronted with increasing demand to ensure and improve care of their patients. A variety of approaches claim to provide solutions to the problems of health care delivery. These approaches represent different perspectives on optimal care and the best method for improving care. By summarizing recent reviews and debates in this field, this article critically reflects on the value of some of the approaches that have gained popularity during the last decades: evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines, professional development, assessment and accountability, patient empowerment, and total quality management. Evidence regarding the impact and feasibility of the various approaches is mixed or simply lacking. In particular, the health care community lacks an understanding of which approaches are most appropriate for what types of improvement in what settings and of the determinants of successful performance change. Given the complexity of improvement and change in patient care, it is not realistic to expect that one approach can solve all the problems in health care delivery. None of the popular models for improving clinical performance appear to be superior. Therefore, bridges must be built and models must be integrated to be truly effective.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2001

Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study.

STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study design, using semi-structured interviews. OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that determine non-adherence to the guidelines for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines for low back pain have been published in the past decade in various countries. In the Netherlands, general practitioners adhere to them to a fair extent, and it is unclear whether room for improvement remains. METHODS: Forty semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with twenty patients who consulted for low back pain, and with their general practitioners. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Patients often had limited expectations of the consultation. They wanted to hear a diagnosis or expected to receive simple advice. The general practitioners said they were well informed about the guideline and mostly agreed with its content. Reasons for non-adherence were mainly related to patients' experiences in the past and general practitioners' interpretations of their preferences. General practitioners stated that they were inclined to give in to patients' demands, for example the request for radiographic films or a referral to a physical therapist. In general, patients and their general practitioners were satisfied with the chosen management. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of the quality of back pain care may still be possible. Implementation strategies should aim at training physicians in communication skills, especially about subjects for debate, where patients' beliefs and experiences color their expectations.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

CAMDEX, can it be more efficient? Observational study on the contribution of four screening measures to the diagnosis of dementia by a memory clinic team.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of the CAMDEX by exploring the contribution of its four main screening measures to the diagnosis of dementia at a memory clinic. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted on the diagnostic practice in a memory clinic regarding all consecutively referred patients who came for a first assessment. A standardised examination based on the CAMDEX included three cognitive tests (CAMCOG, MMSE, IMCT) and a test for functional competence (BDS). The predictive value of the tests was estimated by uni- and multivariate analysis with the clinical dementia diagnosis (yes/no) as dependent variable, taking into account the patients' age, education, gender and sensory ability. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients consecutively referred, 150 completed the assessments and entered the study. Multivariate analysis revealed that the CAMCOG-score contributed most to the clinical diagnosis and was consistent with 84% of the clinical diagnoses using the conventional cutoff 79/80. The CAMCOG-score correlated best with the clinical diagnosis, however, at a cutoff score of 81/82. Forty-one patients (27%) scored closely around (+/-5 points) the CAMCOG cutoff of 79/80. In this group 19 of the total of 23 deviations from the CAMCOG cutoff (83%) occurred. The patients' age, education, gender and visual ability explained some cases where the team's diagnosis deviated from the conventional cutoff score. CONCLUSION: Among four screening measures, after control, the CAMCOG was the only significant predictor for the clinical diagnosis of dementia. To gain efficiency, the screening measures of the CAMDEX protocol may be restricted to the CAMCOG. The interpretation of CAMCOG-scores around the cut-off is problematic. This indicates the need for reference values.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Interventions to implement prevention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians hold a strategic position in delivering preventive services. However discrepancies exist between evidence based guidelines and practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to improve the delivery of preventive services in primary care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register (November 1995; August 1999), MEDLINE (1980 to 1995) and hand searched relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of interventions to improve preventive services by primary care professionals responsible for patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, involving more than 2000 health professionals and 99,000 people, with 83 comparisons between intervention and control groups. Post intervention differences between intervention and control groups varied widely within and across categories of interventions. Most interventions were found to be effective in some studies, but not in others. Five comparisons of group education versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -4% and +31%. Nine comparisons of physician reminders versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between 5% and 24%. Fourteen comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -3% and +64%. Six comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus group education reported absolute changes varying between -31% and +28%. All these comparisons used randomised groups. Ten comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus no intervention used non-randomised groups and showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -5% and +21%. The remaining planned comparisons within categories of interventions contained less than five comparisons. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no solid basis for assuming that a particular intervention or package of interventions will work. Effective interventions to increase preventive activities in primary care exist, but there is considerable variation in the level of change achieved, with effect sizes usually small or moderate. Tailoring interventions to address specific barriers to change in a particular setting is probably important. Multifaceted interventions may be more effective than single interventions, because more barriers to change can be addressed. Future research should analyse barriers to change and interventions to implement preventive services in more detail, to clarify how interventions relate to specific barriers. Since more complex interventions are likely to be more effective but also more costly, economic evaluations should also be included.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments.

We wanted to determine whether research instruments exist which focus on measuring to what extent health professionals involve patients in treatment and management decisions. A systematic search and appraisal of the relevant literature was conducted by electronic searching techniques, snowball sampling and correspondence with field specialists. The instruments had to concentrate on assessing patient involvement in decision-making by observation techniques (either direct or using audio or videotaped data) and contain assessments of the core aspects of 'involvement', namely evidence of patients being involved (explicitly or implicitly) in decision-making processes, a portrayal of options and a decision-making or deferring stage. Eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. But we did not find any instruments that had been specifically designed to measure the concept of 'involving patients' in decisions. The results reveal that little attention has been given to a detailed assessment of the processes of patient involvement in decision-making. The existing instrumentation only includes these concepts as sub-units within broader assessments, and does not allow the construct of patient involvement to be measured accurately. Instruments developed to measure 'patient-centeredness' are unable to provide enough focus on 'involvement' because of their attempt to cover so many dimensions. The concept of patient involvement (shared decision-making; informed collaborative choice) is emerging in the literature and requires an accurate method of assessment.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2001

Functional status, health problems, age and comorbidity in primary care patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between functional status and health problems, age and comorbidity in primary care patients. METHODS: Patients from 60 general practitioners who visited their general practitioner were recruited and asked to complete a written questionnaire, including a list of 25 health problems and the SF-36 to measure functional status. The response rate was 67% (n = 4,112). Differences between subgroups were tested with p < 0.01. RESULTS: Poorer functional status which was associated with increased age (except for vitality) and increased co-morbidity. Patients with asthma/ bronchitis/COPD, severe heart disease/infarction, chronic backpain, arthrosis of knees, hips or hands, or an 'other disease' had poorer scores on at least five dimensions of functional status. Patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus or cancer did not differ from patients without these conditions on more than one dimension of functional status. In the multiple regression analysis age, had a negative effect on functional status (standardised beta-coefficients between -0.03 and -0.34) except for vitality. Co-morbidity had a negative effect on physical role constraints (-0.15) and bodily pain (-0.09). All health problems had effects on dimensions of functional status (coefficients between -0.04 and -0.13). General health and physical dimensions of functional status were better predicted by health problems, age and co-morbidity (between 6.4 and 16.5% of variation explained) than mental dimensions of functional status (between 1.1 and 3.2%). CONCLUSION: Higher age was a predictor of poorer functional status, but there was little evidence for an independent effect of co-morbidity on functional status. Health problems had differential impact on functional status among primary care patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Shared decision making observed in clinical practice: visual displays of communication sequence and patterns.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was to examine the communication strategies of general practitioners attempting to involve patients in treatment or management decisions. This empirical data was then compared with theoretical 'competences' derived for 'shared decision making'. The subjects were four general practitioners, who taped conducted consultations with the specific intent of involving patients in the decision-making process. The consultations were transcribed, coded into skill categorizations and presented as visual display using a specifically devised sequential banding METHOD: The empirical data from these purposively selected consultation from clinicians who are experienced in shared decision making did not match suggested theoretical frameworks. The views of patients about treatment possibilities and their preferred role in decision making were not explored. The interactions were initiated by a problem-defining phase, statements of 'equipoise' consistently appeared and the portrayal of option information was often intermingled with opportunities to allow patients to question and reflect. A decision-making stage occurred consistently after approximately 80% of the total consultation duration and arrangements were consistently made for follow-up and review. Eight of the 10 consultations took more than 11 min - these specific consultations were characterized by significant proportions of time provided for information exchange and patient interaction. The results demonstrate that some theoretical competences are not distinguishable in practice and other stages, not previously described, such as the 'portrayal of equipoise', are observed. The suggested ideal of a shared decision-making interaction will either require more time than currently allocated, or alternative strategies to enable information exchange outside the consultation.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

What do students actually do on an internal medicine clerkship? A log diary study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the amount of time students spend on teaching and learning while on internal medicine clerkships, and existing data suggest a wide international variation. Community-based teaching of internal medicine is now widespread; but its strengths and weaknesses compared to traditional hospital based teaching are still unclear. AIM: To determine the proportion of time students spend on different activities on an internal medicine clerkship, and to determine whether this differs in general practice and in hospital. In addition we aimed to determine students' views on the educational value and enjoyment of various activities. METHODS: Prospective completion of log diaries recording student activities. Each student was asked to complete the diary for two separate weeks of their internal medicine clerkship: one week of general practice-based teaching and one week of hospital-based teaching. RESULTS: The response rate was 68% (88/130). Students spent approximately 5.5 h per day on teaching and learning activities in both environments, with more time (50 min vs. 30 min, P = 0.007) on unsupervised interaction with patients in hospital than in general practice, and more time (53 min vs. 21 min, P < 0.001) undergoingassessment in general practice than in hospital. Standard deviations were wide, demonstrating the heterogeneous nature of the data. Students perceived supervised interaction with patients and teaching by doctors as the most educational activities in both environments, but found it even more educationally valuable and enjoyable in general practice than in hospital (mean score for educational value: 4.27 in general practice, 3.88 in hospital, P = 0.048; mean score for enjoyment 4.13 in general practice, 3.66 in hospital, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Students greatly value interactions with patients, perceiving these as both educational and enjoyable. Curriculum planners must continue to place patient-based learning at the centre of undergraduate medical education. The heterogeneity of the data suggests that individual students have very different experiences, despite apparently similar timetables.

Clinical Clerkship↗
PubMed2001

Applicability of diagnostic recommendations on dementia in family practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the applicability of the Dutch dementia guideline's recommendations, including the diagnostic criteria used by family practitioners, and to explore characteristics in both patients and family practitioners which are associated with the use of these recommendations. DESIGN: An observational study was set up with a sample of 64 family practitioners who were instructed to use the Dutch national dementia guideline on incident-suspected dementia patients. The applicability was expressed as the percentage of recommendations applied. The use of diagnostic criteria was checked by comparing the family practitioners diagnoses with the diagnoses received by integrating the registered symptoms according to the DSM-III-R criteria. Associations between the number of recommendations applied, and demographic and clinical features were explored. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) guideline applicability (ii) integrated use of DSM-III-R criteria. RESULTS: 107 patients were included. The average application rate of the guideline's 31 diagnostic key recommendations was 86% or 24.8 (SD 3.6). The family practitioners diagnoses were consistent with the expected DSM-III-R diagnoses in 26% of the cases (kappa = 0.1). A greater number of patients in a practice was positively associated with the use of recommendations. A need for referral by the family practitioners, and patients' denial of dementia were negatively associated with the use of recommendations. The presence of dementia and a patient's age were negatively associated with the use of the DSM-III-R criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The applicability of the diagnostic recommendations of the national Dutch dementia guideline in a representative sample of family practitioners was promising. Nevertheless, the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-III-R, which were part of the dementia guideline, provided little or no guidance to the family practitioners in their diagnostic decision-making. Clinical and demographic variables explained some of the variation in the use of recommendations.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Continuous quality improvement in small general medical practices: the attitudes of general practitioners and other practice staff.

OBJECTIVES: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) offers opportunities to improve care in small-scale office-based practice. Little is yet known about the implementation of CQI in small primary care practices. We studied the attitudes of physicians and staff in small family practices to a model of CQI tailored to office-based practice setting. PRACTICES AND DESIGN: An exploratory study in 20 family practices in The Netherlands. Practices were stimulated to adopt the model for continuous quality improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of the model at the end of the study period, the perception of the physicians and staff of their success with adopting the model, their view of its usefulness, their willingness to continue and personal and practical obstacles. Measurements were made using written questionnaires. RESULTS: The rate of implementation of the model varied between practices. Participants rated their success in performing improvement projects, holding regular quality meetings and setting targets and priorities. They were positive about the usefulness of the model and they were generally willing to continue to use it. Barriers included the size of workload and the tendency to postpone actions until external support by an outreach visitor was provided. Physician and staff attitudes were homogeneous at a practice level. CONCLUSION: Our findings stress the importance of starting CQI with small, easy-to-handle projects. Workload reduction might be an important issue to focus on. Personal obstacles should be addressed throughout the introduction. We found attitudes in small-scale practices to be homogeneous, so that it was important to pay explicit attention to commitment to CQI from the start of the introduction.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2001

Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The development and implementation of (evidence-based) clinical practice guidelines is one of the promising and effective tools for improving the quality of care. However, many guidelines are not used after dissemination. Implementation activities frequently produce only moderate improvement. It is important to study specific guideline programs in detail to learn from their successes and failures. OBJECTIVES: Experiences with more than 10 years of development and dissemination of clinical guidelines for family medicine in the Netherlands are presented in this paper. RESULTS: More than 70 evidence-based guidelines have been set in a rigorous procedure and have been spread via a variety of strategies. Knowledge and acceptance of the guidelines in the target group is high. In particular, a multifaceted approach with written (scientific journal, support materials) and personal approaches (local consensus discussions, contact with colleagues, outreach visits by peers) seems to be effective in the dissemination. The guideline recommendations are followed in on average 67% of the decisions, but there is a large variation between different physicians and between different guidelines. Specific strategies designed to handle possible obstacles to implementation are needed to improve adherence. Specific implementation projects showed the importance of a "diagnostic analysis" of the target group and target setting before the start of the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A program to implement a guideline should be well designed, well prepared, and preferably pilot tested before use. Such a program should be built into the normal channels and structures for improving care. More research into the details of implementation is needed to better understand the critical determinants of change in practice.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2001

Feedback of patients' evaluations of general practice care: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of feedback of patients' evaluations of care to general practitioners. DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 55 GPs and samples of 3691 and 3595 adult patients before and after the intervention, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: GPs in the intervention group were given an individualised structured feedback report concerning evaluations of care provided by their own patients. Reference figures referring to other GPs were added as well as suggestions for interpretation of this feedback, an evidence-based overview of factors determining patients' evaluations of care, and methods to discuss and plan improvements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' evaluations of nine dimensions of general practice measured with the CEP, a previously validated questionnaire consisting of 64 questions, using a six point answering scale (1= poor, 6 = very good). RESULTS: Mean scores per CEP dimension varied from 3.88 to 4.77. Multilevel regression analysis showed that, after correction for baseline scores, patients' evaluations of continuity and medical care were less positive after the intervention in the intervention group (4.60 v 4.77, p < 0.05 and 4.68 v 4.71, p < 0.05, respectively). No differences were found in the remaining seven CEP dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Providing feedback on patients' evaluations of care to GPs did not result in changes in their evaluation of the care received. This conclusion challenges the relevance of feedback on patients' evaluations of care for quality improvement.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Optimal methods for guideline implementation: conclusions from Leeds Castle meeting.

BACKGROUND: Quality problems in medical care are not a new finding. Variations in medical practice as well as actual medical errors have been pointed out for many decades. The current movement to write practice guidelines to attempt to correct these deviations from recommended medical practice has not solved the problem. OBJECTIVE: In order to gain greater acceptance of these guidelines and to change the behavior of health care providers, the science of guideline implementation must be understood better. RESEARCH DESIGN: A group of experts who have studied the problem of implementation in Europe and the United States was convened. This meeting summary enumerates the implementation methods studied to date, reviews the theories of behavioral change, and makes recommendation for effecting better implementation guidelines. RESULTS: A research agenda was proposed to further our knowledge of effective evidence-based implementation.

Europe↗
PubMed2000

General practitioners on dementia: tasks, practices and obstacles.

The objective of the study was to identify the GPs' perception of their tasks, their practice and obstacles concerning the diagnosis and management of dementia. Twenty-eight GPs participated in focus-group interviews and completed a questionnaire. The GPs perceived their tasks to diagnose, inform and manage dementia patients and their relatives preferably from an early stage on and in such a way that patients are able to stay at home as long as possible. Nevertheless, the GPs diagnose usually in a more progressed stage. As main reasons for this delay the GPs mentioned diagnostic uncertainty during the early stages, embarrassment to conduct a cognitive examination and communicate the diagnosis, non-consulting patients and a lack of time. A discrepancy was found between the GPs' views of their tasks and their clinical practice regarding dementia. Important obstacles were reported that can explain the diagnostic delay and may prevent appropriate education of family caregivers in dealing with demented patients such as embarrassment to examine and communicate this condition.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of patients' preferences and evaluations regarding aspects of general practice care.

BACKGROUND: Although patients' views on health care are perceived to be crucial, insight into the different constructs capturing these views remains limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between patients' preferences and their evaluations of general practice care. METHODS: Patients visiting five rural practices in The Netherlands were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring either their evaluations or their preferences on 44 aspects of general practice care. After at least 3 weeks, those patients who had answered the evaluation questionnaire received the questionnaire measuring their preferences, and vice versa. RESULTS: A total of 449 patients answered both questionnaires (response 70%). The longer the period after the consultation, the lower was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as 'good' in the evaluation questionnaire (P = 0.006) and the higher was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as 'very important' in the preference questionnaire (P = 0.046). The Spearman rank order correlation between the ranking of patients' evaluations and patients' preferences was 0.34, a low although significant correlation (P = 0.024), i.e. the two rank orders do not resemble each other very much. CONCLUSIONS: Patients clearly distinguished their preferences from their evaluations of general practice care. Aspects of general practice care, whether important or not, can be evaluated positively or negatively. Patients' preferences and patients' evaluations are, however, both influenced by the length of the time elapsed since the consultation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Between evidence-based practice and total quality management: the implementation of cost-effective care.

There is an increasing number of studies showing that patients often do not receive necessary care or receive care that is not needed, inefficient or even damaging. There is no lack of ideas and approaches on how to improve practice. In the last decades we have seen the rise of fascinating models for quality improvement, for instance Evidence Based Medicine, Total Quality Management and Patient Partnership. These models are interesting and potentially very valuable in improving patient care. However, the evidence for their (cost-) effectiveness is very limited. The challenge for the years to come is to design strategies for quality improvement that integrate elements from the different models and to set the step from anecdotal evidence for these strategies to systematic evaluation in order to distinguish between faith and fact in the field of improving care.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗