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]

Background: Guideline adherence remains a challenge in clinical practice, despite guidelines' ascribed potential to improve patient outcomes. We studied the level of adherence to recommendations from Dutch national cancer treatment guidelines, and the influence of general and cancer-specific guideline characteristics on adherence. Methods: Based on data from a national cancer registry, adherence was evaluated for 15 treatment recommendations for breast, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer, and melanoma. Recommendations were selected by representatives of the medical specialist associations responsible for developing and implementing the guidelines. We used multivariable multilevel analysis to calculate mean adherence and variation between individual hospitals. Results: Mean adherence to the different treatment recommendations ranged from 40 to 99%. Adherence differed only slightly between older and newer guidelines and between recommendations with low, moderate or high levels of evidence (range 79--84% and 77--91%, respectively), while adherence differed more between recommendations for different cancer types (range 54--99%), different treatment modalities (adherence ranged from 40 to 92%) or recommendations that advised against or recommended in favour of particular treatment (adherence ranged from 75 to 98%). Conclusion: We found significant variation in adherence between different cancer treatment guidelines. While some guideline characteristics that seem to explain this variation may be considered difficult to modify, the potential for variance across cancer types and treatment modalities suggests that adherence could be further improved. At the same time, these results warrant tailored strategies for the improvement of adherence to clinical practice guidelines. [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]

Background: The number of cancer survivors is steadily increasing and these patients often experience long-lasting health problems. To make care for cancer survivors sustainable for the future, it would be relevant to put the effects of cancer in this phase into perspective. Therefore, the authors compared health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and health care use among cancer survivors with that of patients with chronic diseases.Methods: Patients diagnosed at age >18 years with a cancer with a 5-year survival rate > 20% and no distant metastases at the time of diagnosis and patients aged >18 years with physician-diagnosed somatic chronic diseases without cancer were sent a questionnaire. HRQOL was measured with the RAND-36, a measure of HRQOL. Self-reported health care use was measured for general practitioner care, specialist care, rehabilitative care, physical therapy, ambulatory mental health care, and occupational health care.Results: A total of 601 cancer survivors and 1052 patients with chronic diseases without cancer were included in the current study. Multimorbidity was observed in 63% of the cancer survivors and 61% of the patients with chronic diseases. The HRQOL of the cancer survivors was significantly better than that of patients with chronic diseases after adjustment for age and sex. For the mental functioning subscale, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups. Cancer survivors were found to be less likely to have visited a general practitioner or cardiologist compared with patients with chronic diseases.Conclusions: When considering physical HRQOL and health care use, cancer survivors appear to fare better than the average patient with chronic diseases. No difference in mental functioning was observed in the current study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To examine health care utilization of people with multiple chronic diseases in The Netherlands compared to people with one chronic disease, and to identify different subgroups of multimorbid patients based on differences in health care utilization. Methods All patients diagnosed with one or more chronic diseases in 2008–2009 ( N = 17,443) were selected from the nationwide NIVEL Primary Care Database, and data on their GP contacts were included. Data on hospital admissions (from the Dutch Hospital Data database) and household size and income (from the Integral Household Incomes database 2010) were added. Chi-square-tests and multivariate regression analyses were performed to test for differences between multimorbid patients and patients with one chronic disease, and between subgroups of multimorbid patients derived from cluster analysis. Results Multimorbid patients (40% of the total sample) had more GP contacts, prescribed medications, and hospital admissions (all p < .0001) than patients with one chronic disease. The largest cluster of multimorbid patients (80%) was characterized by a relatively low level of health care utilization. Two smaller clusters comprised patients with a (very) high level of health care utilization — these people were mainly older, more often female, had a lower income, a smaller household size, and suffered from more chronic diseases. Conclusions Among the vast majority of multimorbid patients health care utilization is only slightly higher compared to patients with one chronic disease. Extensive health care utilization among people with multimorbidity seems to be related to patient characteristics as well as illness characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate whether the prevalence of health problems in cohabiting partners of people with dementia differs between the year before and the year after 3 transitions: the diagnosis of dementia, institutionalization, and the death of the person with dementia., Methods: Individuals with dementia and their partners were identified on the basis of data in the electronic health records (EHRs) of 451 Dutch general practices. EHRs were also the data source on their health problems, which were linked to the Dutch population registry and health administration data with demographic characteristics, date of institutionalization, and date of death. Differences in the prevalence of 16 groups of health problems and of specific health problems in partners during the year before and the year after the 3 transitions were examined using a generalized estimating equation., Results: About 1,110 partners of persons with dementia were identified. Problems related to the illness and/or loss of the person with dementia were significantly more prevalent in the year after the dementia diagnosis (32% vs. 17%) and in the year after the death of the person with dementia (59% vs. 41%) than in the years before. Unspecified health problems were more prevalent in the year after the diagnosis than in the year before (30% vs. 22%). After institutionalization, an increase was found in digestive problems and urological problems (30% vs. 18% and 24% vs. 17%)., Discussion: Transitions during the dementia care trajectory, namely, the diagnosis, institutionalization, and death of the person with dementia, significantly affect the cohabiting partner's health., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)