Search

Background: A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands. Methods: A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks. Results: On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital. Conclusions: The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To examine health care utilization of people with multiple chronic diseases in The Netherlands compared to people with a single chronic disease, and to identify subgroups of multimorbid patients according to health care utilization. Methods All patients diagnosed with one or more chronic diseases in 2008–2009 (N = 54,051) were selected from the nationwide NIVEL Primary Care Database, and data on their GP contacts and medication in 2010 were retrieved. Data on hospital admissions, household size and income were added. Chi-square-tests and multivariate regression analyses were performed to analyze differences between multimorbid patients and patients with a single chronic disease, and between subgroups of multimorbid patients derived from cluster analysis. Results Multimorbid patients (37% of all patients) had more GP contacts, prescribed medications, and hospital admissions (all p < .0001) than patients with a single chronic disease. The largest cluster of multimorbid patients (57%) had a relatively low level of health care utilization, a smaller cluster (36%) had higher levels of health care utilization, and 7.6% of patients were heavy health care users ( p < .0001 for all variables). The latter were older, more often female, had a lower income, lived in a smaller household, had more chronic diseases, and more often had specific chronic diseases such as COPD, diabetes and heart failure. Conclusions The majority of multimorbid patients have only slightly higher health care utilization than patients with a single chronic disease. Extensive health care utilization among multimorbid patients seems to be related to patient characteristics as well as chronic disease numbers and patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children diagnosed with cancer often require extensive care for medical, psychosocial and educational problems during and after therapy. Part of this care is provided by family physicians and non-cancer specialists, but their involvement in the first years after diagnosis has barely been studied. Studying non-oncology physician visits may provide insight into the roles of different health care providers. Methods: We included 757 children diagnosed with cancer under age 15 between 1991 and 2001 from a Canadian provincial registry, and matched each to 10 controls of the same birth year and sex. We determined the number of family physician and non-cancer specialist visits in the 5 years after diagnosis (for patients) or inclusion (for controls) using data from the provincial health insurance plan. Results: In the first year after diagnosis, almost all patients visited both a family physician and non-cancer specialist. Although after 5 years percentages decreased to 85 and 76 %, respectively, these were still significantly higher than in controls. In the first year after diagnosis, both family physicians and non-cancer specialists were often consulted for neoplasms (62 and 90 %, respectively) and to discuss results of lab tests. In addition, family physicians were often consulted for general symptoms and non-cancer specialists for nervous system problems and complications of medical care. Conclusions: Family physicians and non-cancer specialists are highly involved in the care for children with cancer in the first years after diagnosis, including for health problems related to cancer or its treatment. This necessitates good communication among all physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]