Dataset Information

Does risk and urgency of requested out-of-hours general practitioners care differ for people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings compared with the general population in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional routine data-based study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate whether people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in residential setting were more likely than people from the general population to request out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) care and whether these requests had a similar level of urgency. DESIGN:Cross-sectional routine data-based study. SETTING:Two GP cooperatives providing out-of-hours primary care in an area in the Netherlands. POPULATION:432 582 persons living in the out-of-hours service areas, of which 1448 could be identified as having an ID. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:GP cooperative records of all contacts in 2014 for people with and without ID were used to calculate the relative risk of requesting care and the associated level of urgency. RESULTS:Of the people with ID (448/1448), 30.9% requested out-of-hours GP care, whereas for the general population this was 18.4% (79 206/431 134), resulting in a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 1.8). We found a different distribution of urgency level for people with and without ID. Generally, requests for people with ID were rated as less urgent. CONCLUSION:People with ID in residential setting were more likely to request out-of-hours GP care than the general population. The distribution of the urgency level of requests differed between the two groups. The high percentage of demands relating to people with ID requesting counselling and advice suggests that some out-of-hours GP care may be avoidable. However, more insight is needed into the nature of out-of-hours primary care requests of people with ID to direct structural and reasonable adjustments towards the improvement of health information exchange in and around-the-clock access to primary care for people with ID.

SUBMITTER: Heutmekers M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695369 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does risk and urgency of requested out-of-hours general practitioners care differ for people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings compared with the general population in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional routine data-based study.

Heutmekers Marloes M Naaldenberg Jenneken J Verheggen Sabine A SA Assendelft Willem J J WJJ Lantman-de Valk Henny M J van Schrojenstein HMJVS Tobi Hilde H Leusink Geraline L GL

BMJ open 20171103 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate whether people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in residential setting were more likely than people from the general population to request out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) care and whether these requests had a similar level of urgency.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional routine data-based study.<h4>Setting</h4>Two GP cooperatives providing out-of-hours primary care in an area in the Netherlands.<h4>Population</h4>432 582 persons living in the out-of-hours se ...[more]

PMID: 29101152

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Repeated studies of working hours among Norwegian regular general practitioners (RGPs) have shown that the average total number of weekly working hours has remained unchanged since 1994 and up until 2014. For both male and female RGPs, the mean total weekly working hours amounted to almost 50?h in 2014. In recent years, Norwegian RGPs have become increasingly dissatisfied. They experience significantly increased workload without compensation in the form of more doctors or better payment. A study from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2018 (the RGP study) showed that Norwegian RGPs worked 55.6?h weekly (median 52.5). 25% of the respondents worked more than 62.2?h weekly. Based on data from the RGP study we investigated Norwegian RGP’s out-of-hours (OOH) work, how the working time was distributed, and to what extent the OOH work affected the regular working hours. Methods In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4640 RGPs in Norway. Each RGP reported how many minutes that were spent that particular day on various tasks during seven consecutive days. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional medical work and OOH primary health care. Differences were analysed by independent t-tests, and regression analyses. Results One thousand eighty hundred seventy-six RGPs (40.4%) responded, 640 (34.1%) had registered OOH work. Male RGPs worked on average 1.5?h more doing regular work than did females (p =?0.001) and on average 2.3?h more OOH work than females (p =?0.079). RGPs with no OOH work registered a mean of 1.0?h more clinical work than RGPs working OOH (p =?0.043). There was a large variation in OOH working hours. A linear regression analysis showed that male RGPs and RGPs in rural areas had the heaviest OOH workload. Conclusions One in three Norwegian RGPs undertook OOH work during the registration week in the RGP study. OOH work was done in addition to a sizeable regular workload as an RGP. We found small gender differences. OOH work was not compensated with reduced regular RGP work.

Project description:Increasingly, nurse practitioners (NPs) are deployed in teams along with general practitioners (GPs) to help meet the demand for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs in teams working out-of-hours.A descriptive qualitative study was done using a total of 27 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions. Data was collected between June, 2014 and October, 2015 at an out-of-hours primary care organisation in the Netherlands. Overall, 38 health professionals (GPs, NPs, and support staff) participated in the study. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers conducted an inductive content analysis, involving the identification of relevant items in a first phase and clustering into themes in a second phase.The following four themes emerged from the data: clarity of NP role and regulation, shared caseload and use of skills, communication concerning professional roles, trust and support in NP practice. Main factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs included a lack of knowledge regarding the NPs' scope of practice and regulations governing NP role; differences in teams in sharing caseload and using each other's skills effectively; varying support of GPs for the NP role; and limited communication between GPs and NPs regarding professional roles during the shift. Lack of collaboration was perceived to result in an increased risk of delay for patients who needed treatment from a GP, especially in teams with more NPs. Collaboration was not perceived to improve over time as teams varied across shifts.In out-of-hours primary care teams constantly change and team members are often unfamiliar with each other or other's competences. In this environment, knowledge and communication about team members' roles is continuously at stake. Especially in teams with more NPs, team members need to use each other's skills to deliver care to all patients on time.

Project description:To investigate (1) the degree of digital technology adoption among general dental practitioners, and to assess (2) which personal and practice factors are associated with technology use.A questionnaire was distributed among a stratified sample of 1000 general dental practitioners in the Netherlands, to measure the use of fifteen administrative, communicative, clinical and diagnostic technologies, as well as personal factors and dental practice characteristics.The response rate was 31.3%; 65.1% replied to the questionnaire on paper and 34.9% online. Each specific digital technology was used by between 93.2% and 6.8% of the dentists. Administrative technologies were generally used by more dentists than clinical technologies. Dentists had adopted an average number of 6.3 ± 2.3 technologies. 22.5% were low technology users (0 to 4 technologies), 46.2% were intermediate technology users (5 to 7 technologies) and 31.3% were high technology users (8 to 12 technologies). High technology users more frequently had a specialization (p<0.001), were younger on average (p=0.024), and worked more hours per week (p=0.003) than low technology users, and invested more hours per year in professional activities (p=0.026) than intermediate technology users. High technology use was also more common for dentists working in practices with a higher average number of patients per year (p<0.001), with more dentists working in the practice (p<0.001) and with more staff (p<0.001).With few exceptions, all dentists use some or a substantial number of digital technologies. Technology use is associated with various patterns of person-specific factors, and is higher when working in larger dental practices. The findings provide insight into the current state of digital technology adoption in dental practices. Further exploration why some dentists are more reluctant to adopt technologies than others is valuable for the dental profession's agility in adjusting to technological developments.

Dataset Information

Does risk and urgency of requested out-of-hours general practitioners care differ for people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings compared with the general population in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional routine data-based study.

Publications

Does risk and urgency of requested out-of-hours general practitioners care differ for people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings compared with the general population in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional routine data-based study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure