Patient satisfaction in treatment of non-complex fractures and dislocations in general practice in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study protocol

Tjitte Verbeek, Hans Arentsen, Evert Jan Breet, Machiel M Kuipers, Pieter H W Lubbert, Huibert Burger, Tjitte Verbeek, Hans Arentsen, Evert Jan Breet, Machiel M Kuipers, Pieter H W Lubbert, Huibert Burger

Abstract

Introduction: Diagnosis and treatment of fractures and dislocations are mostly performed in hospital settings. However, equal care for patients with non--complex fractures or dislocations ('minor trauma care') may be provided in general practice. While substitution of care from secondary to primary care settings is stimulated by governments and insurers, it is unknown what the effects are on patient satisfaction level. Therefore, our primary objective is to determine the effect of minor trauma care delivered in a general practice as compared with a hospital on patient satisfaction. Secondary objectives are to assess the effects on treatment outcomes, cost-effectiveness and time consumption.

Methods and analysis: In a prospective cohort study, we will include 200 patients aged 12 and over with an X-ray confirmed diagnosis of a non--complex fracture or dislocation out of whom 100 treated in a general practice and 100 in a secondary care hospital, both located in the Netherlands. All treatment procedures and follow-up will be done in accordance to the hospital's standards of trauma care. Study assessments will be performed pre-treatment, and 1, 6 and 12 weeks after treatment. Data collected include demographics, patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes including physical functioning, complications, pain scores and treatment-related costs. The primary outcome patient satisfaction measured at 12 weeks will be compared between the settings and additionally multivariable regression will be performed to assess potential confounding effects of unbalanced prognostic factors. Treatment outcomes and time consumption will be analysed following the same approach while cost-effectiveness will be assessed using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Subsequently, results will be discussed using focus groups consisting of patients (n=15) and healthcare providers.

Ethics and dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee from the University Medical Center Groningen reviewed this study protocol and granted exemption from ethical approval (METc UMCG 2017/277). Study results will be presented at (inter)national conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03506958; Pre-results.

Keywords: organisation of health services; primary care; trauma management.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. ROS Friesland. ‘Lichte traumazorg in de huisartsenpraktijk’ van start. 2017. (Accessed Apr 2018).
    1. Federatie Medisch Specialisten. Substitutie van zorg, 2017.
    1. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg (RVZ). Medisch specialistische zorg in 20/20: dichtbij en ver weg, 2011.
    1. Netherlands institute for health services research (NIVEL). Monitor multidisciplinaire samenwerking binnen de eerste lijn, 2010.
    1. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Government of the Netherlands. Onderhandelaarsresultaat eerste lijn 2014 t/m 2017. The Hague, the Netherlands: VWS, 2013.
    1. Jan van Es Instituut. Succes- en faalfactoren voor substitutie, 2016.
    1. Antonius Zorggroep. Maatschappelijk jaarverslag. 2017. (Accessed Apr 2018).
    1. Arentsen&Groeneveld. Huisartsenpraktijk Zorgplein Lemmer. 2017. (Accessed Apr 2018).
    1. Heelkunde Friesland. Behandelprotocollen Lichte traumazorg in de eerste lijn, 2017. (accessed: April 2018).
    1. Marshall GN, Hays RD. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1994:7865.
    1. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR. Development and validation of scales to measure patient satisfaction with Medical Care Services. Vol I, Part A: review of literature, overview of methods, and results regarding construction of scales. (NTIS Publication No. PB 288-329). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1976.
    1. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR. Development and validation of scales to measure patient satisfaction with Medical Care Services. Vol I, Part B: results regarding scales constructed from the patient satisfaction questionnaire and measures of other health care perceptions. (NTIS Publication No. PB 288-300. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1976.
    1. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med 1988;18:1007–19.
    1. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127–31.
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 1986;27:117–26.
    1. World Health Organization. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHO-DAS 2.0. Geneva: WHO, 2000.
    1. Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, et al. . The international classification of functioning, disability and health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:565–71. 10.1080/0963828031000137063
    1. Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. . Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ 2010;88:815–23. 10.2471/BLT.09.067231
    1. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand). Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8.
    1. Goldberg DP. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Maudsley monograph No. 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
    1. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, et al. . The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 1997;27:191–7.
    1. EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley, 1987.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner