Search

Introduction: Care integration in primary elderly care is suboptimal. Validated instruments are needed to enable the implementation of integrated primary care. We aimed to assess construct validity of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool (RMIC-MT) for healthcare professionals working in an integrated primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the RMIC-MT, a 36-item questionnaire covering all domains of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), was sent out to local networks of primary elderly care professionals. Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was used for the validation of the factor structure the RMIC-MT. Model fit was assessed by the chi-square test and fit indices. Results: The RMIC-MT was completed by 323 professionals, primarily general practitioners, community nurses, practice nurses, and case managers. Confirmatory factor analysis and corresponding fit indices showed moderate to good fit, thereby confirming a nine factor model with a total of 36 items. Conclusions: The RMIC-MT is promising for the primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. It can be used for evaluating integrated care initiatives in a primary care setting, thereby contributing to implementation of integrated primary elderly care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the number of patients with complex healthcare needs grows, inter-professional collaboration between primary care professionals must be constantly optimized. General practitioners (GPs) and community nurses (CNs) are key professions in primary care; however, poor GP-CN communication is common, and research into the factors influencing its quality is limited.Objective: To explore patient-related GP-CN communication and facilitating and hindering factors, and to identify strategies to enhance this communication.Method: A qualitative focus group design was used to identify the facilitating and hindering factors and strategies for improvement. In a Dutch primary care setting, 6 mono-professional focus group interviews (3 meetings of 13 GPs; 3 meetings of 18 CNs) were organized between June 2015 and April 2016, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two independent researchers performed the coding of these interviews, identifying their categories and themes.Results: Results show that, despite the regular contact between GPs and CNs, communication was generally perceived as poor in effectiveness and efficiency by both professions. Mutual trust was considered the most important facilitating factor for effective communication. Profession-specific factors (e.g. differences in responsibility and profession-specific language) and organizational factors (e.g. lack of shared care plans, no in-person communication, lack of time) may be of influence on communication. Participants' suggestions for improvement included organizing well-structured and reimbursed team meetings and facilitating face-to-face contact.Conclusion: GP-CN patient-related communication benefits most from trusting inter-personal relationships. Inter-professional training programmes should address both professional and organizational factors and should be evaluated for their effect on quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. Objective: To describe the development of a two‐step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. Methods: The method consisted of (i) an open‐ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. Results: One hundred and thirty‐seven community‐dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well‐being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. Conclusions: This two‐step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care for the frail elderly is often provided by several professionals. Collaboration between them is essential, but remains difficult to achieve. Interprofessional education (IPE) can improve this collaboration. We developed a 9-hour IPE program for primary care professionals from 7 disciplines caring for the frail elderly, and aimed to establish whether the program improved professionals' interprofessional attitudes and attitudes toward collaboration, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. We also evaluated learners' reactions to the program. Methods: Before-after study, using the Interprofessional Attitudes Questionnaire (IAQ, score:1 to 7); Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS, score: 0 to 105); and Team Skills Scale (TSS, score:17 to 85). Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 selected participants. Results: Participants' ( N = 80) overall interprofessional attitudes improved (IAQ baseline: 5.49; follow-up: 5.67, p = 0.001); attitudes toward geriatric teams did not change (ATHCTS baseline: 69.9; follow-up: 69.1, p = 0.32). Participants' self-reported team skills improved (TSS baseline: 45.7; follow-up: 48.1, p = 0.001). In the interviews, many interviewees reported increased collaboration with professionals of other disciplines due to the program. Interviewees considered the program's interprofessional nature and attending the program with local professionals important contributing factors to the experienced improvements in collaboration. However, they also noted that not all parts of the program had met the needs of all participating disciplines, due to differences in professional background and knowledge. Discussion: A brief IPE program can improve interprofessional attitudes, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. That such a program allows professionals to get acquainted with each other and each other's viewpoints appears to be as important as the educational content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]