PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Measuring chronic care management experience of patients with diabetes: PACIC and PACIC+ validation 
Background
The patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) is a promising instrument to evaluate the chronic care experiences of patients, yet additional validation is needed to improve its usefulness.
Methods
A total of 1941 patients with diabetes completed the questionnaire. Reliability coefficients and factor analyses were used to psychometrically test the PACIC and PACIC+ (i.e. PACIC extended with six additional multidisciplinary team functioning items to improve content validity). Intra-class correlations were computed to identify the extent to which variation in scores can be attributed to GP practices.
Results
The PACIC and PACIC+ showed a good psychometric quality (Cronbach’s alpha’s >0.9). Explorative factor analyses showed inconclusive results. Confirmative factor analysis showed that none of the factor structures had an acceptable fit (RMSEA>0.10). In addition, 5.1 to 5.4% of the total variation was identified at the GP practice level.
Conclusion
The PACIC and PACIC+ are reliable instruments to measure the chronic care management experiences of patients. The PACIC+ is preferred because it also includes multidisciplinary coordination and cooperation—one of the central pillars of chronic care management—with good psychometric quality. Previously identified subscales should be used with caution. Both PACIC instruments are useful in identifying GP practice variation.
PMCID: PMC3601510  PMID: 23593054
chronic care model; patient experience; chronic care management; integrated care; diabetes; PACIC
2.  Quality of diabetes care in Dutch care groups: no differences between diabetes patients with and without co-morbidity 
Objective
To evaluate the relationship between presence and nature of co-morbidity and quality of care for diabetes patients enrolled in diabetes disease management programmes provided by care groups.
Methods
We performed an observational study within eight Dutch diabetes care groups. Data from patient record systems of care groups and patient questionnaires were used to determine quality of care. Quality of care was measured as provision of the recommended diabetes care, patients’ achievement of recommended clinical outcomes and patients’ perception of coordination and integration of care.
Results
527 diabetes patients without and 1187 diabetes patients with co-morbidity were included. Of the co-morbid patients, 7.8% had concordant co-morbid conditions only, 63.8% had discordant co-morbid diseases only and 28.4% had both types of conditions. Hardly any differences were observed between patients with and without co-morbidity in terms of provided care, achievement of clinical outcomes and perceived coordination and integration of care.
Conclusions
Our study implies that care groups are able to provide similar quality of diabetes care for diabetes patients with and without co-morbidity. Considering the expected developments regarding additional disease management programmes in care groups, it is of importance to monitor quality of care, including patient experiences, for all chronic diseases. It will then become clear whether accountable provider-led organisations such as care groups are able to ensure quality of care for the increasing number of patients with multiple chronic conditions.
PMCID: PMC3886599  PMID: 24409109
bundled payment; care groups; co-morbidity; diabetes; disease management; integrated care; quality of care
3.  Needs and barriers to improve the collaboration in oral anticoagulant therapy: a qualitative study 
Background
Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) involves many health care disciplines. Even though collaboration between care professionals is assumed to improve the quality of OAT, very little research has been done into the practice of OAT management to arrange and manage the collaboration. This study aims to identify the problems in collaboration experienced by the care professionals involved, the solutions they proposed to improve collaboration, and the barriers they encountered to the implementation of these solutions.
Methods
In the Netherlands, intensive follow-up of OAT is provided by specialized anticoagulant clinics (ACs). Sixty-eight semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 103 professionals working at an AC. These semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively. Wagner's chronic care model (CCM) and Cabana's framework for improvement were used to categorize the results.
Results
AC professionals experienced three main bottlenecks in collaboration: lack of knowledge (mostly of other professionals), lack of consensus on OAT, and limited information exchange between professionals. They mentioned several solutions to improve collaboration, especially solutions of CCM's decision support component (i.e. education, regular meetings, and agreements and protocols). Education is considered a prerequisite for the successful implementation of other proposed solutions such as developing a multidisciplinary protocol and changing the allocation of tasks. The potential of the health care organization to improve collaboration seemed to be underestimated by professionals. They experienced several barriers to the successful implementation of the proposed solutions. Most important barriers were the lack motivation of non-AC professionals and lack of time to establish collaboration.
Conclusions
This study revealed that the collaboration in OAT is limited by a lack of knowledge, a lack of consensus, and a limited information exchange. Education was identified as the best way to improve collaboration and considered a prerequisite for a successful implementation of other proposed solutions. Hence, the implementation sequence is of importance in order to improve the collaboration successfully. First step is to establish alignment regarding collaboration with all involved professionals to encounter the lack of motivation of non-AC professionals and lack of time.
doi:10.1186/1471-2261-11-76
PMCID: PMC3268100  PMID: 22192088
4.  Faster return to work after psychiatric consultation for sicklisted employees with common mental disorders compared to care as usual. A randomized clinical trial 
Introduction
Return to work (RTW) of employees on sick leave for common mental disorders may require a multidisciplinary approach. This article aims to assess time to RTW after a psychiatric consultation providing treatment advice to the occupational physician (OP) for employees on sick leave for common mental disorders in the occupational health (OH) setting, compared to care as usual (CAU).
Methods
Cluster randomized clinical trial evaluating patients of 12 OPs receiving consultation by a psychiatrist, compared to CAU delivered by 12 OPs in the control group. 60 patients suffering from common mental disorders and ≥ six weeks sicklisted were included. Follow up three and six months after inclusion. Primary outcome measure was time to RTW. Intention- to-treat multilevel analysis and a survival analysis were performed to evaluate time to RTW in both groups.
Results
In CAU, referral was the main intervention. Both groups improved in terms of symptom severity and quality of life, but time to RTW was significantly shorter in the psychiatric consultation group. At three months follow up, 58% of the psychiatric consultation group had full RTW versus 44% of the control group, a significant finding (P = 0.0093). Survival analysis showed 68 days earlier RTW after intervention in the psychiatric consultation group (P = 0.078) compared to CAU.
Conclusion
Psychiatric consultation for employees on sick leave in the OH setting improves time to RTW in patients with common mental disorders as compared to CAU. In further research, focus should be on early intervention in patients with common mental disorders on short sick leave duration. Psychiatric consultation might be particularly promising for improvement of RTW in those patients.
Trial registration number
ISRCTN: 86722376
PMCID: PMC2938286  PMID: 20856601
psychiatric consultation; mental disorders; RCT; sickness absence; major depressive disorder; anxiety disorder; somatoform disorder

Results 1-4 (4)