In many Western countries, hospital emergency departments are overcrowded, leading to the desire to strengthen primary care, particularly after hours. To achieve this goal, an increasing number of Western nations are reorganizing their after-hours primary care systems into large-scale primary care physician (PCP) cooperatives. This article provides an overview of the organization, performance, and development of PCP cooperatives in the Netherlands. The Dutch after-hours primary care system might offer opportunities for other countries facing problems with after-hours care and inappropriate emergency department visits. During the past several years, the number of contacts with Dutch PCP cooperatives has increased to 245 contacts per 1000 citizens per year. Many contacts (45%) are nonurgent, and about half occur as part of a series of primary care contacts. Low accessibility and availability of daytime primary care are related to greater use of after-hours primary care. To prevent unnecessary attendance at the cooperatives, physicians advocate copayment, a stricter triage system, and a larger role for telephone doctors. More than half of the PCP cooperatives in the Netherlands have integrated with hospital emergency departments, forming "emergency care access points." This collaboration has decreased emergency department use by 13% to 22%, and treatment of self-referrals by PCP cooperatives in emergency care access points is safe and cost-effective. Direct access to diagnostic facilities may optimize efficiency even more. Other recent developments include access to electronic health records of daytime primary care practices, task substitution from physicians to nurses, and the launch of a 2-year training program for PCPs to become experts in emergency care.

ObjectiveTo study the effectiveness of a comprehensive diabetes programme in general practice that integrates patient-centred lifestyle counselling into structured diabetes care.Design and settingCluster randomised trial in general practices.InterventionNurse-led structured diabetes care with a protocol, record keeping, reminders, and feedback, plus training in motivational interviewing and agenda setting.SubjectsPrimary care nurses in 58 general practices and their 940 type 2 diabetes patients with an HbA1c concentration above 7%, and a body mass index (BMI) above 25 kg/m2.Main outcome measuresHbA1c, diet, and physical activity (medical records and patient questionnaires).ResultsMultilevel linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for baseline outcomes showed that despite active nurse participation in the intervention, the comprehensive programme was no more effective than usual care after 14 months, as shown by HbA1c levels (difference between groups = 0.13; CI 20.8–0.35) and diet (fat (difference between groups = 0.19; CI 20.82–1.21); vegetables (difference between groups = 0.10; CI-0.21–0.41); fruit (difference between groups = 20.02; CI 20.26–0.22)), and physical activity (difference between groups = 21.15; CI 212.26–9.97), or any of the other measures of clinical parameters, patient's readiness to change, or quality of life.ConclusionA comprehensive programme that integrated lifestyle counselling based on motivational interviewing principles integrated into structured diabetes care did not alter HbA1c or the lifestyle related to diet and physical activity. We thus question the impact of motivational interviewing in terms of its ability to improve routine diabetes care in general practice.

BackgroundIn the Netherlands, about half of the patient contacts with a general practitioner (GP) cooperative are nonurgent from a medical perspective. A part of these problems can wait until office hours or can be managed by the patient himself without further professional care. However, from the patient’s perspective, there may be a need to contact a physician immediately. Our objective was to determine whether contacts with out-of-hours primary care made by patients with nonurgent problems are the result of patients’ beliefs or of deficiencies in the healthcare system.MethodsWe performed a survey among 2000 patients with nonurgent health problems in four GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. Two GPs independently judged the medical necessity of the contacts of all patients in this study. We examined characteristics, views and motives of patients with medically necessary contacts and those without medically necessary contacts. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics, views and reasons of the patients with medically unnecessary contacts and medically necessary contacts. Differences between these groups were tested with chi-square tests.ResultsThe response rate was 32.3 % (N = 646). Of the nonurgent contacts 30.4 % were judged as medically necessary (95 % CI 27.0-34.2). Compared to patients with nonurgent but medically necessary contacts, patients with medically unnecessary contacts were younger and were more often frequent attenders. They had longer-existing problems, lower self-assessed urgency, and more often believed GP cooperatives are intended for all help requests. Worry was the most frequently mentioned motive for contacting a GP cooperative for patients with a medically unnecessary contact (45.3 %) and a perceived need to see a GP for patients with a medically necessary contact (44.2 %). Perceived availability (5.8 %) and accessibility (8.3 %) of a patient’s own GP played a role for some patients.ConclusionMotives for contacting a GP cooperative are mostly patient-related, but also deficiencies in access to general practice may partly explain medically unnecessary use. Efforts to change the use of GP cooperatives should focus on education of subgroups with an increased likelihood of contact for medically unnecessary problems. Improvement of access to daytime primary care may also decrease use of the GP cooperative.

High quality of consultation has a positive, but small, impact on the appropriateness of decisions. Quality of consultation needs to be targeted in training and support of triage nurses, especially when it concerns highly urgent contacts.

C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly being promoted to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and enhance antibiotic stewardship. In primary care, respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, which is a major driver for antibiotic resistance. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the impact of CRP-POCT on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Thirteen moderate to high-quality studies comprising 9844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that CRP-POCT significantly reduced immediate antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation compared with usual care (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.90, p = 0.0003, I2 = 76%) but not during 28-day (n = 7) follow-up. The immediate effect was sustained at 12 months (n = 1). In children, CRP-POCT reduced antibiotic prescribing when CRP (cut-off) guidance was provided (n = 2). Meta-analyses showed significantly higher rates of re-consultation within 30 days (n = 8, 1 significant). Clinical recovery, resolution of symptoms, and hospital admissions were not significantly different between CRP-POCT and usual care. CRP-POCT can reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care (number needed to (NNT) for benefit = 8) at the expense of increased re-consultations (NNT for harm = 27). The increase in re-consultations and longer-term effects of CRP-POCT need further evaluation. Overall, the benefits of CRP-POCT outweigh the potential harms (NNTnet = 11).