BackgroundIt is challenging to use shared decision-making with patients who have a chronic health condition or, especially, multimorbidity. A patient-goal-oriented approach can thus be beneficial. This study aims to identify and evaluate studies on the effects of interventions that support collaborative goal setting or health priority setting compared to usual care for elderly people with a chronic health condition or multimorbidity.MethodsThis systematic review was based on EPOC, PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pubmed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched systematically. The following eligibility criteria were applied: 1. Randomised (cluster) controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series or repeated measures study design; 2. Single intervention directed specifically at collaborative goal setting or health priority setting or a multifactorial intervention including these elements; 3. Study population of patients with multimorbidity or at least one chronic disease (mean age ± standard deviation (SD) incl. age 65). 4. Studies reporting on outcome measures reducible to outcomes for collaborative goal setting or health priority setting.ResultsA narrative analysis was performed. Eight articles describing five unique interventions, including four cluster randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial, were identified. Four intervention studies, representing 904, 183, 387 and 1921 patients respectively, were multifactorial and showed statistically significant effects on the application of goal setting (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) goal setting subscale), the number of advance directives or the inclusion of goals in care plans. Explicit attention for goal setting or priority setting by a professional was a common element in these multifactorial interventions. One study, which implemented a single-factor intervention on 322 patients, did not have significant effects on doctor-patient agreement. All the studies had methodological concerns in varying degrees.ConclusionsCollaborative goal setting and/or priority setting can probably best be integrated in complex care interventions. Further research should determine the mix of essential elements in a multifactorial intervention to provide recommendations for daily practice. In addition, the necessity of methodological innovation and the application of mixed evaluation models must be highlighted to deal with the complexity of goal setting and/or priority setting intervention studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0534-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health care is changing rapidly. Unacceptable variations in service access and quality of health care and pressures to contain costs have led to the redefinition of professional roles. The roles of nonphysician clinicians (nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists) have been extended to the medical domain. It is expected that such revision of roles will improve health care effectiveness and efficiency. The evidence suggests that nonphysician clinicians working as substitutes or supplements for physicians in defined areas of care can maintain and often improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients. The effect on health care costs is mixed, with savings dependent on the context of care and specific nature of role revision. The evidence base underpinning these conclusions is strongest for nurses with a marked paucity of research into pharmacists and physician assistants. More robust evaluative studies into role revision are needed, particularly with regard to economic impacts, before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Overall this review shows some positive effects of specific methods to improve the involvement of older people in primary care episodes. Because the evidence is limited, however, we can not recommend the use of the reviewed interventions in daily practice. There should be a balance between respecting patients' autonomy and stimulating their active participation in health care. Face-to-face coaching sessions, whether or not complemented with written materials, may be the way forward. As this is impractical for the whole population, it could be worthwhile to identify a subgroup of older patients who might benefit the most from enhanced involvement, ie. those who want to be involved, but lack the necessary skills. This group could be coached either individually or, more practically, in group sessions.

BackgroundTo meet the challenge of multimorbidity in decision making, a switch from a disease‐oriented to a goal‐oriented approach could be beneficial for patients and clinicians. More insight about the concept and the implementation of this approach in clinical practice is needed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop conceptual descriptions of goal‐oriented care by examining the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and clinical geriatricians (CGs), and how the concept relates to collaborative communication and shared decision making with elderly patients with multimorbidity.MethodQualitative interviews with GPs and CGs were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsClinicians distinguished disease‐ or symptom‐specific goals, functional goals and a new type of goals, which we labelled as fundamental goals. “Fundamental goals” are goals specifying patient's priorities in life, related to their values and core relationships. These fundamental goals can be considered implicitly or explicitly in decision making or can be ignored. Reasons to explicate goals are the potential mismatch between medical standards and patient preferences and the need to know individual patient values in case of multimorbidity, including the management in acute situations.ConclusionBased on the perspectives of clinicians, we expanded the concept of goal‐oriented care by identifying a three‐level goal hierarchy. This model could facilitate collaborative goal‐setting for patients with multiple long‐term conditions in clinical practice. Future research is needed to refine and validate this model and to provide specific guidance for medical training and practice.

Background Multimorbidity poses a challenge for decision-making processes and requires that more attention is paid to patient goals, preferences and needs; however, goal setting is not yet widely recognised as a core aspect of the shared decision-making (SDM) approach. This study aims to analyse clinician perceptions of the concept of goal setting within the context of SDM with older patients with multimorbidity. Methods Semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and clinical geriatricians (CGs) were analysed using a framework analysis. The integrative model of SDM was used to develop a categorisation matrix, including goal setting as an additional component. Results Sixteen of the 33 clinicians mentioned explicit Goal setting as an integrated component of their definition of SDM, which was comparable to the number of clinicians who listed Patient values and preferences ( n = 16), Doctor knowledge and recommendations ( n = 19) and Make or explicitly defer a decision ( n = 19), elements which are commonly considered to be important aspects of SDM. The other 17 clinicians (6 CGs and 11 GPs) did not mention Goal setting as an explicit component of SDM. Our analysis revealed two potential reasons for this observation. Besides the use of other terminology, part of clinicians viewed collaborative goal setting and SDM as separate but related processes. Conclusions Our study on clinician perspectives highlighted goal setting as component of a SDM approach and could therefore be considered supportive of recent theoretical insights that SDM models that lack an explicit goal-setting component appear to be deficient and overlook an important aspect of engaging patients in decision-making, particularly for patients with complex multimorbidities. We therefore call for the further development of a comprehensive SDM approach for older patients with multimorbidity to include explicit and unequivocal goal setting elements to sufficiently meet the expectations and needs of clinicians and their patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0966-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundInsight into the frequency and seriousness of potentially unsafe situations may be the first step towards improving patient safety. Most patient safety attention has been paid to patient safety in hospitals. However, in many countries, patients receive most of their healthcare in primary care settings. There is little concrete information about patient safety in primary care in the Netherlands. The overall aim of this study was to provide insight into the current patient safety issues in Dutch general practices, out-of-hours primary care centres, general dental practices, midwifery practices, and allied healthcare practices. The objectives of this study are: to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients; to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals; and to provide insight into patient safety management in primary care practices.Design and methodsThe study consists of three parts: a retrospective patient record study of 1,000 records per practice type was conducted to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients (objective one); a prospective component concerns an incident-reporting study in each of the participating practices, during two successive weeks, to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals (objective two); to provide insight into patient safety management in Dutch primary care practices (objective three), we surveyed organizational and cultural items relating to patient safety. We analysed the incidents found in the retrospective patient record study and the prospective incident-reporting study by type of incident, causes (Eindhoven Classification Model), actual harm (severity-of-outcome domain of the International Taxonomy of Medical Errors in Primary Care), and probability of severe harm or death.DiscussionTo estimate the frequency of incidents was difficult. Much depended on the accuracy of the patient records and the professionals' consensus about which types of adverse events have to be recognized as incidents.

Background: We aimed to investigate incidence rates of urinary tract infections in Dutch general practice and their association with gender, season and urbanisation level, and to analyse prescription and referral in case of urinary tract infections.