In 1996 the guideline 'The Red Eye' was first published by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. The extent to which general practitioners adhere to this guideline is unclear. Recently, data on the management of infectious conjunctivitis by general practitioners became available from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. We measured the age-specific incidence of infectious conjunctivitis, described its management by Dutch general practitioners, and then compared these findings with the recommendations made in the guideline.In 2001, over a 12-month period, data from all patient contacts with 195 general practitioners were taken from electronic medical records. Registration was episode-oriented; all consultations dealing with the same health problem were grouped into disease episodes. Data concerning all episodes of infectious conjunctivitis (ICPC-code F70 and sub codes) were analysed.Over one year, 5,213 new and recurrent episodes of infectious conjunctivitis were presented to general practitioners from a population of N = 375,899, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 13.9 per 1000 person-years, varying from more than 80/1000 py in children up to one-year old, to less than 12/1000 py in children over the age of 4. Topical ophthalmic ointments were prescribed in 87% of the episodes, of which 80% was antibiotic treatment. Fusidic acid gel was most frequently prescribed (69%). In most episodes general practitioners did not adhere to the guideline.In 2001, the management of infectious conjunctivitis by Dutch general practitioners was not in accordance with the recommendations of the consensus-based guideline published five years previously, despite its wide distribution. In 2006 this guideline was revised. Its successful implementation requires more than distribution alone. Probably the most effective way to achieve this is by following a model for systemic implementation.
Low socioeconomic position (SEP) is related to higher healthcare use in out-of-hours primary care services (OPCSs). We aimed to determine whether inequalities persist when taking the generally poorer health status of socioeconomically vulnerable individuals into account. To put OPCS use in perspective, this was compared with healthcare use in daytime general practice (DGP).Electronic health record (EHR) data of 988 040 patients in 2017 (251 DGPs, 27 OPCSs) from Nivel Primary Care Database were linked to socio-demographic data (Statistics, The Netherlands). We analyzed associations of OPCS and DGP use with SEP (operationalized as patient household income) using multilevel logistic regression. We controlled for demographic characteristics and the presence of chronic diseases. We additionally stratified for chronic disease groups.An income gradient was observed for OPCS use, with higher probabilities within each lower income group [lowest income, reference highest income group: odds ratio (OR) = 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-1.51]. Income inequalities in DGP use were considerably smaller (lowest income: OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Inequalities in OPCS were more substantial among patients with chronic diseases (e.g. cardiovascular disease lowest income: OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.53-1.67). The inequalities in DGP use among patients with chronic diseases were similar to the inequalities in the total population.Higher OPCS use suggests that chronically ill patients with lower income had additional healthcare needs that have not been met elsewhere. Our findings fuel the debate how to facilitate adequate primary healthcare in DGP and prevent vulnerable patients from OPCS use.
Objective. To compare the occurrence of pre-existing and subsequent comorbidity among older cancer patients (≥60 years) with older non-cancer patients. Material and Methods. Each cancer patient (n = 3835, mean age 72) was matched with four non-cancer patients in terms of age, sex, and practice. The occurrence of chronic diseases was assessed cross-sectionally (lifetime prevalence at time of diagnosis) and longitudinally (incidence after diagnosis) for all cancer patients and for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients separately. Cancer and non-cancer patients were compared using logistic and Cox regression analysis. Results. The occurrence of the most common pre-existing and incident chronic diseases was largely similar in cancer and non-cancer patients, except for pre-existing COPD (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37) and subsequent venous thrombosis in the first two years after cancer diagnosis (HR 4.20, 95% CI 2.74-6.44), which were significantly more frequent (P < 0.01) among older cancer compared to non-cancer patients. Conclusion. The frequency of multimorbidity in older cancer patients is high. However, apart from COPD and venous thrombosis, the incidence of chronic diseases in older cancer patients is similar compared to non-cancer patients of the same age, sex, and practice.
Multimorbidity is a health issue mostly dealt with in primary care practice. As a result of their generalist and patient-centered approach, long-lasting relationships with patients, and responsibility for continuity and coordination of care, family physicians are particularly well placed to manage patients with multimorbidity. However, conflicts arising from the application of multiple disease oriented guidelines and the burden of diseases and treatments often make consultations challenging. To provide orientation in decision making in multimorbidity during primary care consultations, we developed guiding principles and named them after the Greek mythological figure Ariadne. For this purpose, we convened a two-day expert workshop accompanied by an international symposium in October 2012 in Frankfurt, Germany. Against the background of the current state of knowledge presented and discussed at the symposium, 19 experts from North America, Europe, and Australia identified the key issues of concern in the management of multimorbidity in primary care in panel and small group sessions and agreed upon making use of formal and informal consensus methods. The proposed preliminary principles were refined during a multistage feedback process and discussed using a case example. The sharing of realistic treatment goals by physicians and patients is at the core of the Ariadne principles. These result from i) a thorough interaction assessment of the patient's conditions, treatments, constitution, and context; ii) the prioritization of health problems that take into account the patient's preferences - his or her most and least desired outcomes; and iii) individualized management realizes the best options of care in diagnostics, treatment, and prevention to achieve the goals. Goal attainment is followed-up in accordance with a re-assessment in planned visits. The occurrence of new or changed conditions, such as an increase in severity, or a changed context may trigger the (re-)start of the process. Further work is needed on the implementation of the formulated principles, but they were recognized and appreciated as important by family physicians and primary care researchers.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/222.
People with diabetes find it difficult to sustain adequate self-management behaviour. Self-Management Support strategies, including the use of mobile technology, have shown potential benefit. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a mobile phone support intervention on top of an existing strategy in three countries, DR Congo, Cambodia and the Philippines to improve health outcomes, access to care and enablement of people with diabetes, with 480 people with diabetes in each country who are randomised to either standard support or to the intervention.The study consists of three sub-studies with a similar design in three countries to be independently implemented and analysed. The design is a two-arm Randomised Controlled Trial, in which a total of 480 adults with diabetes participating in an existing DSME programme will be randomly allocated to either usual care in the existing programme or to usual care plus a mobile phone self-management support intervention. Participants in both arms complete assessments at baseline, one year and two years after inclusion.Glycosylated haemoglobin blood pressure, height, weight, waist circumference will be measured. Individual interviews will be conducted to determine the patients' assessment of chronic illness care, degree of self-enablement, and access to care before implementation of the intervention, at intermediate moments and at the end of the study.Analyses of quantitative data including assessment of differences in changes in outcomes between the intervention and usual care group will be done. A probability of <0.05 is considered statistically significant. Outcome indicators will be plotted over time. All data are analysed for confounding and interaction in multivariate regression analyses taking potential clustering effects into account.Differences in outcome measures will be analysed per country and realistic evaluation to assess processes and context factors that influence implementation in order to understand why it works, for whom, under which circumstances. A costing study will be performed.The intervention addresses the problem that the greater part of diabetes management takes place without external support and that many challenges, unforeseen problems and questions occur at moments in between scheduled contacts with the support system, by exploiting communication technology.ISRCTN86247213.
