Search

Abstract Background The impact of high physician workload and job stress on quality and outcomes of healthcare delivery is not clear. Our study explored whether high workload and job stress were associated with lower performance in general practices in the Netherlands. Methods Secondary analysis of data from 239 general practices, collected in practice visits between 2003 to 2006 in the Netherlands using a comprehensive set of measures of practice management. Data were collected by a practice visitor, a trained non-physician observer using patients questionnaires, doctors and staff. For this study we selected five measures of practice performance as outcomes and six measures of GP workload and job stress as predictors. A total of 79 indicators were used out of the 303 available indicators. Random coefficient regression models were applied to examine associations. Results and discussion Workload and job stress are associated with practice performance. Workload: Working more hours as a GP was associated with more positive patient experiences of accessibility and availability (b = 0.16). After list size adjustment, practices with more GP-time per patient scored higher on GP care (b = 0.45). When GPs provided more than 20 hours per week per 1000 patients, patients scored over 80% on the Europep questionnaire for quality of GP care. Job stress: High GP job stress was associated with lower accessibility and availability (b = 0.21) and insufficient practice management (b = 0.25). Higher GP commitment and more satisfaction with the job was associated with more prevention and disease management (b = 0.35). Conclusion Providing more time in the practice, and more time per patient and experiencing less job stress are all associated with perceptions by patients of better care and better practice performance. Workload and job stress should be assessed by using list size adjusted data in order to realise better quality of care. Organisational development using this kind of data feedback could benefit both patients and GP.

Aim To study the effects of a team-based model for continuous quality improvement (CQI) on primary care practice management. Design of study Randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty-six intervention and 23 control primary care practices in the Netherlands. Method Practices interested in taking part in the CQI project were, after assessment of their practice organisation, randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. During a total of five meetings, a facilitator helped the teams in the intervention group select suitable topics for quality improvement and follow a structured approach to achieve improvement objectives. Checklists completed by an outreach visitor, questionnaires for the GPs, staff and patients were used to assemble data on the number and quality of improvement activities undertaken and on practice management prior to the start of the intervention and 1 year later. Results Pre-test and post-test data were compared for the 26 intervention and 23 control practices. A significant intervention effect was found for the number of improvement objectives actually defined (93 versus 54, P<0.001) and successfully completed (80 versus 69% of the projects. P<0.001). The intervention group also improved on more aspects of practice management, as measured by our practice visit method, than the control group but none of these differences proved statistically significant. Conclusion The intervention exerted a significant effect on the number and quality of improvement projects undertaken and self-defined objectives met. Failure of the effects of the intervention on the other dimensions of practice management to achieve significance may be due to the topics selected for some of the improvement projects being only partly covered by the assessment instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore nurse involvement in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) in primary care and how this involvement was associated with the degree of structured chronic illness care., Study Design: A cross-sectional observational study in 7 European countries., Methods: Five aspects of nurse involvement in CVRM and 35 specific components of structured chronic illness care were documented in 202 primary care practices in Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland. An overall measure for chronic care management, range 0 to 5, was constructed, derived from elements of the Chronic Care Model (CCM). Random coefficient regression modeling was used to explore associations., Results: A majority of practices involved nurses for organization of CVRM in administrative tasks (82.2 %), risk factor monitoring (78.5%) and patient education (57.1%). Fewer practices involved nurses in defining protocol and the organization for CVRM (45%) or diagnosis and treatment (34.6%). With an increasing number of tasks handled by nurses, overall median adoption of CCM increased from 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5-3.6) to 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.1). When the number of nurse tasks increased by 1, the adoption of CCM increased by 0.13 (P <.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.22). Some practices with low nurse involvement had high adoption of CCM, while variation of adoption of CCM across practices reduced substantially with an increasing level of nurse involvement., Conclusions: Nurses were involved in the delivery of CVRM in varying degrees. Higher involvement of nurses was associated with higher degree of structured chronic illness care, with less variation.

Background: Many physicians have medical experience in developing countries early in their career, but its association with their medical performance later is not known. To explore possible associations we compared primary care physicians (GPs) with and without professional experience in a developing country in performance both clinical and organisational., Methods: A retrospective survey using two databases to analyse clinical and organisational performance respectively. Analysis was done at the GP level and practice level.517 GPs received a questionnaire regarding relevant working experience in a developing country. Indicators for clinical performance were: prescription, referral, external diagnostic procedures and minor procedures. We used the district health insurance data base covering 570.000 patients. Explorative secondary analysis of practice visits of 1004 GPs in 566 practices in the Netherlands from 1999 till 2001. We used a validated practice visit method (VIP; 385 indicators in 51 dimensions of practice management) to compare having experience in a developing country or not., Results: Almost 8% of the GPs had experience in a developing country of at least two years.These GPs referred 9,5% less than their colleagues and did more surgical procedures. However, in the multivariate analysis 'experience in a developing country' was not significantly associated with clinical performance or with other GP- and practice characteristics. 16% of the practices a GP or GPs with at least two years experience in a developing country. They worked more often in group and rural practices with less patients per fte GP and more often part-time. These practices are more hygienic, collaborate more with the hospital and score better on organisation of the practice. These practices score less on service and availability, spend less time on patients in the consultation and the quality of recording in the EMD is lower., Conclusions: We found interesting differences in clinical and organisational performance between GPs with and without medical experience in developing countries and between their practices. It is not possible to attribute these differences to this experience, because the choice for medical experience in a tropical country probably reflects individual differences in professional motivation and personality. Experience in a developing country may be just as valuable for later performance in general practice as experience at home.