Biomedical subjects

Trudy van der Weijden

Publications and source records attributed to Trudy van der Weijden.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners often take their impression of patients' expectations into account in their decision to have blood tests done. It is commonly recommended to involve patients in decision-making during consultations. The study aimed to obtain detailed information on patients' expectations about blood tests. METHODS: Qualitative study among patients in waiting rooms of general practices. Each patient was presented with a short questionnaire about their preferences in terms of diagnostics. Patients who would like blood tests to be done were interviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (26%) of the 224 respondents wanted blood tests. Twenty-two were interviewed. Patients overestimated the qualities of blood tests. Favourable test results were regarded as proof of good health. Patients regarded blood tests as a useful instrument to screen for serious disorders, and were confirmed in this belief by people in their social environment and by the media. Many patients expected their GP to take an active test ordering approach, though some indicated that they might be convinced if their GP proposed a wait-and-see policy. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' perceptions about patient expectations seem justified: patients appear to have high hopes for testing as a diagnostic tool. They expect diagnostic certainty without mistakes and a proof of good health. The question is whether it would be desirable to remove patients' misconceptions, allowing them to participate in policy decisions on the basis of sound information, or whether it would be better to leave the misconceptions uncontested, in order to retain the 'magic' of additional tests and reassure patients. We expect that clarifying the precise nature of patients' expectations by the GP may be helpful in creating a diagnostic strategy that satisfies both patients and GPs. GPs will have to balance the benefits of reassuring their patients by means of blood tests which may be unnecessary against the benefits of avoiding unnecessary tests. Further research is needed into the effects of different types of patient information and the effects of testing on satisfaction and anxiety.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Does a joint development and dissemination of multidisciplinary guidelines improve prescribing behaviour: a pre/post study with concurrent control group and a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to keep control over prescribing behaviour in general practices. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a dissemination strategy of multidisciplinary guidelines on the volume of drug prescribing. METHODS: The study included two designs, a quasi-experimental pre/post study with concurrent control group and a random sample of GPs within the intervention group. The intervention area with 53 GPs was compared with a control group of 54 randomly selected GPs in the south and centre of the Netherlands. Additionally, a randomisation was executed in the intervention group to create two arms with 27 GPs who were more intensively involved in the development of the guideline and 26 GPs in the control group. A multidisciplinary committee developed prescription guidelines. Subsequently these guidelines were disseminated to all GPs in the intervention region. Additional effects were studied in the subgroup trial in which GPs were invited to be more intensively involved in the guideline development procedure. The guidelines contained 14 recommendations on antibiotics, asthma/COPD drugs and cholesterol drugs. The main outcome measures were prescription data of a three-year period (one year before and 2 years after guideline dissemination) and proportion of change according to recommendations. RESULTS: Significant short-term improvements were seen for one recommendation: mupirocin. Long-term changes were found for cholesterol drug prescriptions. No additional changes were seen for the randomised controlled study in the subgroup. GPs did not take up the invitation for involvement. CONCLUSION: Disseminating multidisciplinary guidelines that were developed within a region, has no clear effect on prescribing behaviour even though GPs and specialists were involved more intensively in their development. Apparently, more effort is needed to bring about change.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886].

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) frequently order blood tests when they see patients presenting with unexplained complaints. Due to the low prevalence of serious pathology in general practice, the risk of false-positive test results is relatively high. This may result in unnecessary further testing, leading to unfavourable effects such as patient anxiety, high costs, somatisation and morbidity. A policy of watchful waiting is expected to lower both the number of patients to be tested and the risk of false-positive test results, without missing serious pathology. However, many general practitioners experience barriers when trying to postpone blood testing by watchful waiting. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the accuracy of blood tests in patients presenting with unexplained complaints in terms of detecting pathology, (2) to determine the accuracy of a watchful waiting strategy and (3) to determine the effects of a quality improvement strategy to promote the postponement of blood test ordering by GPs for patients with unexplained complaints. DESIGN: General practices are randomised over three groups. Group 1 is instructed to order blood tests immediately, group 2 to apply a watchful waiting policy and group 3 also to postpone testing, but supported by our quality improvement strategy. The trial consists of two sub-studies: a diagnostic study at patient level (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and a quality improvement study at GP level (group 2 versus group 3). The diagnostic strategy to be used involves of both customary and innovative tests. The quality improvement strategy consists of two small-group meetings and a practice outreach visit. Patient follow-up ends at 12 months after the initial consultation. Primary outcome measures are the accuracy and added value of blood tests for detecting pathology, the effect of a 4-week postponement of test ordering on the blood test characteristics and the quantity of tests ordered. Secondary outcome measures are the course of complaints, quality of life, satisfaction with care, anxiety of patients and practitioners, determinants of physicians' behaviour, health care utilisation and costs. DISCUSSION: The innovative aspect of this trial is that it combines a clinical-epidemiological study and a quality of care study.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Design and evaluation of a computer reminder system to improve prescribing behaviour of GPs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a decision support system with reactive computer reminders to improve drug prescribing behaviour. METHODS: A clustered RCT with an incomplete block design was carried out in the south of the Netherlands: 25 GPs received reminders on antibiotics and asthma/COPD prescriptions, 28 GPs received reminders on cholesterol prescriptions. Prescribing guidelines were integrated into the GP information system, which was installed in the GPs practices of the intervention group. When the computer program was in use, a reminder popped up if the GP deviated from the guidelines during prescribing. PRIMARY OUTCOME: prescription according to the guidelines as a percentage of total prescriptions of a specific drug. Furthermore, an evaluation on the user-friendliness of the CRS in the GP's practice was carried out through questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS: Presently analyses are being carried out. Preliminary results indicate that the CRS study supported our expectations. In general, there seems to be a reduction in the numbers of prescriptions according to the advices of the computerised guidelines not to prescribe certain drugs. Final analysis will be performed shortly. In general, the Computer Reminder System was perceived as stable and user friendly. CONCLUSION: We created a stable and user friendly Computer Reminder System which was adjusted to the needs and demands of GPs. Preliminary results regarding the effectiveness of the system seem to indicate that the implementation of a Computer Reminder System with reactive reminders improves drug prescribing behaviour.

Drug Prescriptions↗

PubMed2005

Variation in requests for imaging investigations by general practitioners: a multilevel analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation in the numbers of imaging investigations requested by general practitioners (GPs) and to find likely explanations for this variation. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the use of eight imaging investigations by 229 GPs collaborating in 40 local GP groups from five regions in the Netherlands during 1997. A multivariable, multilevel regression analysis was used to link these data with survey data on professional characteristics such as knowledge about and attitude towards test ordering, and with data on contextual factors such as practice type or experience with feedback on test-ordering data. RESULTS: Data for 221 GPs (97%) were available. After adjustment for practice size and working time, the median number of imaging investigations ordered per GP was 148 (interquartile range 71 to 300), with large differences (up to twofold) between the regions (P<0.001). Overall, chest X-rays were the largest single category (median = 48 interquartile range 17 to 100). GPs working in a group practice requested, on average, 34% fewer investigations than their colleagues working in single-person practices (95% confidence interval 17 to 48%). CONCLUSIONS: Only practice type was found to be associated with the number of imaging investigations requested, adjusted for practice size and working time factor. No further explanations were found for the inter-regional differences. Future studies on the ordering of imaging investigations by GPs should attempt to delineate contextual from regional factors.

Diagnostic Imaging↗

PubMed2004

Block design allowed for control of the Hawthorne effect in a randomized controlled trial of test ordering.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of balanced incomplete block designs in quality improvement research, and their capacity to control for the Hawthorne effect. METHODS: General practitioners teams were randomized into three arms and received an intervention on test ordering, relating to tests for two groups of clinical problems (A tests and B tests). In the two trials within the block design, we tried to control for the Hawthorne effect by comparing the complete intervention in both arms on either the A (arm I) or B tests (arm II); the arms acted as blind controls for each other. In the classical trial, the complete intervention on B tests (arm II) was compared with a control arm without any intervention on B tests (arm III). RESULTS: The trials with the block design yielded statistically significant changes in the numbers of A tests ordered (P=.013), but not in the numbers of B tests ordered (P=.29). In the classical design, the complete intervention reached a marginally significant change in the B tests (P=.068). The Hawthorne effect was the same for both arms of the block design. In the classical design, the effect could to some extent be attributed to the Hawthorne effect. CONCLUSION: Our block design allowed us to control for the Hawthorne effect. Suitable use of block designs may further our knowledge of nonspecific effects in quality improvement research.

Diagnostic Tests, Routine↗

PubMed2004

Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention.

The application of cardiovascular guidelines and risk tables may be impeded by many barriers. In the present paper, we explored the role of patients in the feasibility of cardiovascular preventive care in general practice. Patient-related barriers were examined by means of a qualitative study. Fifteen GPs audio-taped one or two consultations on primary cardiovascular preventive care. The tapes were used to guide the subsequent semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients. Twenty-two patients were interviewed. Patients' understanding of prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was often insufficient. The risk table and the multi-factorial approach were difficult to understand. Risk perception was often unrealistic and dichotomous, and mainly based on personal experiences. There was a demand for more information and cholesterol tests. At the patient level, many barriers impede effective prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In particular, the highly individualized high-risk approach needs to be explained to patients. Educational patient materials, intended to support both the GP and the patient, should take into account the ideas, fears and expectations of patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Barriers to implementing cardiovascular risk tables in routine general practice.

DESIGN: Qualitative study. GPs were interviewed after analysing two audiotaped cardiovascular consultations. SETTING: Primary health care. SUBJECTS: A sample of 15 GPs who audiotaped 22 consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers hampering GPs from following the guideline. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after about 13 interviews. The 25 identified barriers were related to the risk table, the GP or to environmental factors. Lack of knowledge and poor communication skills of the GP, along with pressure of work and demanding patients, cause GPs to deviate from the guideline. GPs regard barriers external to themselves as most important. CONCLUSION: Using the risk table as a key element of the high-risk approach in primary prevention encounters many barriers. Merely incorporating risk tables in guidelines is not sufficient for implementation of the guidelines. Time-efficient implementation strategies dealing in particular with the communication and presentation of cardiovascular risk are needed.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe GPs' test ordering behaviour, and to establish professional and context-related determinants of GPs' inclination to order tests. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out of 229 GPs in 40 local GP groups from five regions in The Netherlands of the combined number of 19 laboratory and eight imaging tests ordered by GPs, collected from five regional diagnostic centres. In a multivariable multilevel regression analysis, these data were linked with survey data on professional characteristics such as knowledge about and attitude towards test ordering, and with data on context-related factors such as practice type or experience with feedback on test ordering data. The main outcome measure was the percentage point differences associated with professional and context-related factors. RESULTS: The total median number of tests per GP per year was 998 (interquartile range 663-1500), with significant differences between the regions. The response to the survey was 97%. At the professional level, 'individual involvement in developing guidelines' (yes versus no), and at the context-related level 'group practice' (versus single-handed and two-person practices) and 'more than 1 year of experience working with a problem-oriented laboratory order form' (yes versus no) were associated with 27, 18 and 41% lower numbers of tests ordered, respectively. CONCLUSION: In addition to professional determinants, context-related factors appeared to be strongly associated with the numbers of tests ordered. Further studies on GPs' test ordering behaviour should include local and regional factors.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2004

Comparing cost effects of two quality strategies to improve test ordering in primary care: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and cost reductions of an innovative strategy aimed at improving test ordering routines of primary care physicians, compared with a traditional strategy. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial with randomization at the local primary care physicians group level. SETTING: Primary care: local primary care physicians groups in five regions of the Netherlands with diagnostic centers. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven existing local primary care physicians groups, including 194 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: The test ordering strategy was developed systematically, and combined feedback, education on guidelines, and quality improvement sessions in small groups. In regular quality meetings in local groups, primary care physicians discussed each others' test ordering behavior, related it to guidelines, and made individual and/or group plans for change. Thirteen groups engaged in the entire strategy (complete intervention arm), while 14 groups received feedback only (feedback arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Running costs, development costs, and research costs were calculated for the intervention period per primary care physician per 6 months. The mean costs of tests ordered per primary care physician per 6 months were assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: The new strategy was found to cost 702.00, while the feedback strategy cost 58.00. When including running costs only, the intervention was found to cost 554.70, compared with 17.10 per primary care physician per 6 months in the feedback arm. When excluding opportunity costs for the physicians' time spent, the intervention was found to cost 92.70 per physician per 6 months in the complete intervention arm. The mean costs reduction that physicians in that arm achieved by reducing unnecessary tests was 144 larger per physician per 6 months than the physicians in the feedback arm (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: On the basis of our findings, including the expected non-monetary benefits, we recommend further long-term effect and cost-effect studies on the implementation of the quality strategy.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2003

Effect of a practice-based strategy on test ordering performance of primary care physicians: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Numbers of diagnostic tests ordered by primary care physicians are growing and many of these tests seem to be unnecessary according to established, evidence-based guidelines. An innovative strategy that focused on clinical problems and associated tests was developed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a multifaceted strategy aimed at improving the performance of primary care physicians' test ordering. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a balanced, incomplete block design and randomization at group level. Thirteen groups of primary care physicians underwent the strategy for 3 clinical problems (arm A; cardiovascular topics, upper and lower abdominal complaints), while 13 other groups underwent the strategy for 3 other clinical problems (arm B; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, general complaints, degenerative joint complaints). Each arm acted as a control for the other. SETTING: Primary care physician groups in 5 regions in the Netherlands with diagnostic centers recruited from May to September 1998. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six primary care physician groups, including 174 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: During the 6 months of intervention, physicians discussed 3 consecutive, personal feedback reports in 3 small group meetings, related them to 3 evidence-based clinical guidelines, and made plans for change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: According to existing national, evidence-based guidelines, a decrease in the total numbers of tests ordered per clinical problem, and of some defined inappropriate tests, is considered a quality improvement. RESULTS: For clinical problems allocated to arm A, the mean total number of requested tests per 6 months per physician was reduced from baseline to follow-up by 12% among physicians in the arm A intervention, but was unchanged in the arm B control, with a mean reduction of 67 more tests per physician per 6 months in arm A than in arm B (P =.01). For clinical problems allocated to arm B, the mean total number of requested tests per 6 months per physician was reduced from baseline to follow-up by 8% among physicians in the arm B intervention, and by 3% in the arm A control, with a mean reduction of 28 more tests per physician per 6 months in arm B than in arm A (P =.22). Physicians in arm A had a significant reduction in mean total number of inappropriate tests ordered for problems allocated to arm A, whereas the reduction in inappropriate test ordered physicians in arm B for problems allocated to arm B was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this study, a practice-based, multifaceted strategy using guidelines, feedback, and social interaction resulted in modest improvements in test ordering by primary care physicians.

Diagnostic Tests, Routine↗

PubMed2002

Understanding laboratory testing in diagnostic uncertainty: a qualitative study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Better knowledge of the professional's motives for ordering laboratory tests in the case of diagnostic uncertainty may lead to interventions directed at reducing unnecessary testing. AIM: To gain insight into the general practitioner's (GP's) motives for ordering laboratory tests for patients presenting with unexplained complaints. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured interviews based on surgery observations. SETTING: Twenty-one general practices in rural and urban areas of The Netherlands. METHOD: Investigation of the GP's perception of determinants of test-ordering behaviour in the situation of diagnostic uncertainty. The interviews were structured by evaluating the consultations and test-ordering performance of that day. RESULTS: Dutch GPs vary considerably in their motives for ordering tests. Numerous motives emerged from the data. Some examples of important themes include: personal routines; tolerance of diagnostic uncertainty; time pressure; and tactical motives for test ordering. Complying with the perceived needs of the patient for reassurance through testing is seen as an easy, cost- and time-effective strategy. A clear hierarchy in the determinants was not found. CONCLUSION: The decision to request laboratory testing is the result of a complex interaction of considerations that are often conflicting. Designers of interventions meant to improve the ordering of tests should be aware of the numerous determinants, and take contextual variables into account.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Unexplained complaints in general practice: prevalence, patients' expectations, and professionals' test-ordering behavior.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into general practitioners' (GPs) test-ordering behavior for patients presenting with unexplained complaints. An unexplained complaint's symptoms are not alarming, and there is no plausible medical or psychosocial explanation for it. The Dutch College of General Practitioners (DCGP) recommends a watchful, waiting attitude for test ordering for unexplained complaints. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study of 567 doctor-patient consultations performed by 21 GPs. RESULTS: On average, 13% of consultations involved complaints considered unexplained by GPs. Unexplained complaints were positively related to test ordering (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-5.3), despite the DCGP's recommendation. Patients' expectations about testing influenced test ordering even more (adjusted OR = 4.1, 95% CI 2.2-7.6). DISCUSSION: Unexplained complaints happen daily in general practice. Besides the DCGP's recommendation, factors such as GPs' desire to understand complaints and patients' expectations seem to have impacts. Guideline development and quality improvement projects should respect, next to Bayesian rules, GP- and patient-related determinants of test ordering.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Improving test ordering in primary care: the added value of a small-group quality improvement strategy compared with classic feedback only.

PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the added value of small peer-group quality improvement meetings compared with simple feedback as a strategy to improve test-ordering behavior. Numbers of tests ordered by primary care physicians are increasing, and many of these tests seem to be unnecessary according to established, evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians from 27 local primary care practice groups in 5 health care regions (5 diagnostic centers). The study was a cluster randomized trial with randomization at the local physician group level. We evaluated an innovative, multifaceted strategy, combining written comparative feedback, group education on national guidelines, and social influence by peers in quality improvement sessions in small groups. The strategy was aimed at 3 specific clinical topics: cardiovascular issues, upper abdominal complaints, and lower abdominal complaints. The mean number of tests per physician per 6 months at baseline and the physicians' region were used as independent variables, and the mean number of tests per physician per 6 months was the dependent variable. RESULTS: The new strategy was executed in 13 primary care groups, whereas 14 groups received feedback only. For all 3 clinical topics, the decrease in mean total number of tests ordered by physicians in the intervention arm was far more substantial (on average 51 fewer tests per physician per half-year) than the decrease in mean number of tests ordered by physicians in the feedback arm (P = .005). Five tests considered to be inappropriate for the clinical problem of upper abdominal complaints decreased in the intervention arm, with physicians in the feedback arm ordering 13 more tests per 6 months (P = .002). Interdoctor variation in test ordering decreased more in the intervention arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with only disseminating comparative feedback reports to primary care physicians, the new strategy of involving peer interaction and social influence improved the physicians' test-ordering behavior. To be effective, feedback needs to be integrated in an interactive, educational environment.

Abdominal Pain↗