[Limited change in the quality of the social medical guidance and in the satisfaction of sick-listed patients, after collaborative projects between general practitioners and occupational physicians].
ABSTRACT To evaluate whether regional projects for collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs) improved the quality of their social medical guidance (SMG) and the satisfaction of their patients.
Evaluation study with before and after measurements with respect to the same GPs and OPs.
Structured interviews were conducted with 58 GPs and 83 OPs regarding the SMG of their sick-listed patients. Before the project, the SMG of 1109 sick-listed patients was assessed and after the project, 1 or 1.5 years later, the SMG of 1121 sick-listed patients. These patients were sent a questionnaire by means of which their satisfaction could be assessed.
After the projects, the quality ofthe diagnosis by the OPs was improved and they also more often adhered to the official guidelines of the KNMG (Royal Netherlands Medical Association) when contacting the GP about a patient. The GPs more often contacted the OP if they needed more information about a patient after reaching a diagnosis. Nevertheless, in half to three-quarters of the patients for whom contact between GPs and OPs was indicated, this contact did not take place. There was no significant increase in patient satisfaction. Before the projects, patients gave their GP a grade of 8.2 on a 10-point scale and after the projects this was 8.5; the OPs were given a grade of 7.5 both times. Further analysis showed that there was no significant relation between the quality ofthe SMG and the patient's satisfaction with the doctor.
Although there was some improvement in the quality of the SMG, there was still insufficient cooperation between GPs and OPs compared to the guidelines. An increase in patient satisfaction was not demonstrated.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We wanted to measure adherence to the guideline for depression in disability assessments. The research questions we addressed were: How can we develop performance indicators (PIs) for adherence to the Dutch guideline for disability assessment of patients with depression and how can we measure the quality of the scores? What is the inter-rater reliability of these PIs? What is the quality of the PI scores? PIs, developed by the researchers, were reviewed on various aspects, by a panel of seven experts in several consulting rounds. After adjustments, senior insurance physicians (IPs) attended two training sessions and scored the PIs on 10 different simulated case reports. Two researchers developed proxy 'gold standard' scores for these 10 case reports. To assess the inter-rater reliability and the quality of the scores, we calculated the intra-class correlations (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the PI scores and of the PI scores compared to the proxy 'gold standard', respectively. Six specific and relevant PIs resulted from the consultation of the panel of experts. The PI scores for the 10 case reports, rated by seven (of the eight) senior IPs who completed both training sessions, showed that the PIs were not reliable at individual level (ICC = 0.543; 95% CI 0.426-0.642). However, the ICC became more reliable as an average of two raters was calculated (ICC = 0.704). The ICC of the PI scores with the proxy 'gold standard' was 0.538 (95% CI 0.419-0.640), but the quality was higher when calculated as an average of two raters (ICC = 0.700). The PIs for adherence to the guideline were sufficiently reliable, and the quality of their scores was adequate if at least two well-trained raters were involved. The senior IPs evaluated the feasibility of the PIs as good, with a prerequisite of sufficient training. This method may be interesting for measuring guideline adherence and quality of disability assessments in general.Disability and Rehabilitation 05/2011; 33(25-26):2535-43. DOI:10.3109/09638288.2011.579222 · 1.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Return to work after gynaecological surgery takes much longer than expected, irrespective of the level of invasiveness. In order to empower patients in recovery and return to work, a multidisciplinary care program consisting of an e-health intervention and integrated care management including participatory workplace intervention was developed. We designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of the multidisciplinary care program on full sustainable return to work in patients after gynaecological surgery, compared to usual clinical care. Two hundred twelve women (18-65 years old) undergoing hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery on benign indication in one of the 7 participating (university) hospitals in the Netherlands are expected to take part in this study at baseline. The primary outcome measure is sick leave duration until full sustainable return to work and is measured by a monthly calendar of sickness absence during 26 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcome measures are the effect of the care program on general recovery, quality of life, pain intensity and complications, and are assessed using questionnaires at baseline, 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks after surgery. The discrepancy between expected physical recovery and actual return to work after gynaecological surgery contributes to the relevance of this study. There is strong evidence that long periods of sick leave can result in work disability, poorer general health and increased risk of mental health problems. We expect that this multidisciplinary care program will improve peri-operative care, contribute to a faster return to work of patients after gynaecological surgery and, as a consequence, will reduce societal costs considerably. Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2087.BMC Health Services Research 02/2012; 12:29. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-29 · 1.66 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To generate structured detailed uniform convalescence recommendations after gynaecological surgery by a modified Delphi method amongst experts and a representative group of physicians. Modified Delphi study. Expert physicians recruited by their respective medical boards and employed at different hospitals, doctor's surgeries and healthcare services. Twelve experts (five gynaecologists, two general practitioners [GPs] and five occupational physicians [OPs]) and a representative sample of 63 medical doctors. Multidisciplinary detailed recommendations for graded resumption of relevant activities after uncomplicated hysterectomy (laparoscopic supracervical, total laparoscopic/laparoscopic-assisted, vaginal and abdominal hysterectomies) and laparoscopic adnexal surgery were developed. Recommendations were based on a literature review and a modified Delphi procedure among 12 experts, recruited in collaboration with the participating medical boards of gynaecologists, GPs and OPs. A multidisciplinary consensus of at least 67% on the relevant detailed convalescence recommendations in relation to hysterectomy and laparoscopic adnexal surgery. Out of initially 65 activities, the expert panel judged 38 activities relevant for convalescence recommendations. Consensus for all activities was achieved after four Delphi rounds and two group discussions. The recommendations were judged as feasible by a representative sample of 26 gynaecologists, 19 GPs and 18 OPs. Consensus between gynaecologists, GPs and OPs was achieved on all relevant convalescence recommendations regarding hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic) and laparoscopic adnexal surgery.BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 09/2011; 118(13):1557-67. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03091.x · 3.86 Impact Factor