BackgroundThe QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) study aims to evaluate the performance of primary care systems in Europe in terms of quality, equity and costs. The study will provide an answer to the question what strong primary care systems entail and which effects primary care systems have on the performance of health care systems. QUALICOPC is funded by the European Commission under the "Seventh Framework Programme". In this article the background and design of the QUALICOPC study is described.Methods/designQUALICOPC started in 2010 and will run until 2013. Data will be collected in 31 European countries (27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey) and in Australia, Israel and New Zealand. This study uses a three level approach of data collection: the system, practice and patient. Surveys will be held among general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, providing evidence at the process and outcome level of primary care. These surveys aim to gain insight in the professional behaviour of GPs and the expectations and actions of their patients. An important aspect of this study is that each patient's questionnaire can be linked to their own GP's questionnaire. To gather data at the structure or national level, the study will use existing data sources such as the System of Health Accounts and the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor Europe (PHAMEU) database. Analyses of the data will be performed using multilevel models.DiscussionBy its design, in which different data sources are combined for comprehensive analyses, QUALICOPC will advance the state of the art in primary care research and contribute to the discussion on the merit of strengthening primary care systems and to evidence based health policy development.

Doctors' negative attitudes, concerns and ambivalent feelings should be addressed in recruitment strategies, especially when the analysis of EPRs or direct patient contact is required. Some doctors do not participate in research out of principle and will be very difficult to convince.

BackgroundThere is no clear evidence as to whether the co-location of primary care professionals in the same facility positively influences their way of working and the quality of healthcare as perceived by patients. The aim of this study was to identify the relationships between general practitioner (GP) co-location with other GPs and/or other professionals and the GP outcomes and patients’ experiences.MethodsWe wanted to test whether GP co-location is related to a broader range of services provided, the use of clinical governance tools and inter-professional collaboration, and whether the patients of co-located GPs perceive a better quality of care in terms of accessibility, comprehensiveness and continuity of care with their GPs. The source of data was the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe), which involved surveys of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, mostly in Europe. In order to study the relationships between GP co-location and both GPs’ outcomes and patients’ experience, multilevel linear regression analysis was carried out.ResultsThe GP questionnaire was filled in by 7183 GPs and the patient experience questionnaire by 61,931 patients. Being co-located with at least one other professional is the most common situation of the GPs involved in the study. Compared with single-handed GP practices, GP co-location are positively associated with the GP outcomes. Considering the patients’ perspective, comprehensiveness of care has the strongest negative relationship of GP co-location of all the dimensions of patient experiences analysed.ConclusionsThe paper highlights that GP mono- and multi-disciplinary co-location is related to positive outcomes at a GP level, such as a broader provision of technical procedures, increased collaboration among different providers and wider coordination with secondary care. However, GP co-location, particularly in a multidisciplinary setting, is related to less positive patient experiences, especially in countries with health systems characterised by a weak primary care structure.

BackgroundMany elderly patients receive psychotropic drugs. Treatment with psychotropic agents is associated with serious side effects including an increased risk of falls and fractures. Several psychotropic drugs are considered potentially inappropriate for treatment of the elderly.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted covering all patients aged ≥ 65 years who were admitted to Evangelisches Krankenhaus Göttingen-Weende between 01/01/2013 and 03/31/2013. Psychotropic drugs reviewed for included benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, antidepressants and neuroleptics, but not drugs for sedation during artificial ventilation or pre-medication before surgery. Potentially inappropriate drugs were identified according to the PRISCUS list. To assess which factors were associated with the administration of psychotropic drugs, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsThe charts of 2130 patients (1231 women) were analyzed. 53.9% of all patients received at least one psychotropic medication (29.5% benzodiazepines, 12.6% Z-drugs, 22.2% antidepressants, 11.9% neuroleptics). The mean number of psychotropic drugs prescribed per patient with at least one prescription was 1.6. Patients treated in the geriatric department most often received antidepressants (45.0%), neuroleptics (20.6%) and Z-drugs (27.5%). Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were prescribed mostly as medication on demand (77.7% of benzodiazepines, 73.9% of Z-drugs). Surgical patients most frequently received benzodiazepines (37.1%). Nearly one-third of all patients ≥ 65 years was treated with at least one potentially inappropriate psychotropic medication. The mean number of potentially inappropriate psychotropic medications per patient with at least one psychotropic prescription was 0.69. The percentage of patients with potentially inappropriate psychotropic medication was highest in the surgical departments (74.1%). Female gender (adjusted OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.63), stay in the Department of Geriatrics (2.69; 2.01 to 3.60) or the interdisciplinary intensive care unit (1.87; 1.33 to 2.64) and age ≥ 85 years (1.33; 1.10 to 1.60) were associated with psychotropic drug treatment.ConclusionsA high percentage of patients aged ≥ 65 years received psychotropic drugs. The chance that a potentially inappropriate psychotropic drug would be administered was highest in the surgical departments. Antidepressants, neuroleptics and Z-drugs were used surprisingly often in geriatric medicine. Educational strategies could reduce the use of psychotropic drugs and the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the psychometric properties of the short version of the Calgary Cambridge Guides and to decide whether it can be recommended for use in the assessment of communications skills in young undergraduate medical students.Methods: Using a translated version of the Guide, 30 members from the Department of General Practice rated 5 videotaped encounters between students and simulated patients twice. Item analysis should detect possible floor and/or ceiling effects. The construct validity was investigated using exploratory factor analysis. Intra-rater reliability was measured in an interval of 3 months, inter-rater reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient.Results: The score distribution of the items showed no ceiling or floor effects. Four of the five factors extracted from the factor analysis represented important constructs of doctor-patient communication The ratings for the first and second round of assessing the videos correlated at 0.75 (p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficients for each item ranged were moderate and ranged from 0.05 to 0.57.Conclusions: Reasonable score distributions of most items without ceiling or floor effects as well as a good test-retest reliability and construct validity recommend the C-CG as an instrument for assessing communication skills in undergraduate medical students. Some deficiencies in inter-rater reliability are a clear indication that raters need a thorough instruction before using the C-CG.

Health care needs in the population change through ageing and increasing multimorbidity. Primary health care might accommodate to this through the composition of practices in terms of the professionals working in them. The aim of this article is to describe the composition of primary care practices in 34 countries and to analyse its relationship to practice circumstances and the organization of the primary care system. The data were collected through a survey among samples of general practitioners (n=7183) in 34 countries. In some countries, primary care is mainly provided in single-handed practices. Other countries which have larger practices with multiple professional groups. There is no overall relationship between the professional groups in the practice and practice location. Practices that are located further from other primary care practices have more different professions. Practices with a more than average share of socially disadvantaged people and/or ethnic minorities have more different professions. In countries with a stronger pro-primary care workforce development and more comprehensive primary care delivery the number of different professions is higher. In conclusion, primary care practice composition varies strongly. The organizational scale of primary care is largely country dependent, but this is only partly explained by system characteristics.

Aim: This article synthesises the results of a large international study on primary care (PC), the QUALICOPC study. Background: Since the Alma Ata Declaration, strengthening PC has been high on the policy agenda. PC is associated with positive health outcomes, but it is unclear how care processes and structures relate to patient experiences. Methods: Survey data were collected during 2011–2013 from approximately 7000 PC physicians and 70 000 patients in 34, mainly European, countries. The data on the patients are linked to data on the PC physicians within each country and analysed using multilevel modelling. Findings: Patients had more positive experiences when their PC physician provided a broader range of services. However, a broader range of services is also associated with higher rates of hospitalisations for uncontrolled diabetes, but rates of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalisations were lower in countries where patients had a continuous relationship with PC physicians. Additionally, patients with a long-term relationship with their PC physician were less likely to attend the emergency department. Capitation payment was associated with more positive patient experiences. Mono- and multidisciplinary co-location was related to improved processes in PC, but the experiences of patients visiting multidisciplinary practices were less positive. A stronger national PC structure and higher overall health care expenditures are related to more favourable patient experiences for continuity and comprehensiveness. The study also revealed inequities: patients with a migration background reported less positive experiences. People with lower incomes more often postponed PC visits for financial reasons. Comprehensive and accessible care processes are related to less postponement of care. Conclusions: The study revealed room for improvement related to patient-reported experiences and highlighted the importance of core PC characteristics including a continuous doctor–patient relationship as well as a broad range of services offered by PC physicians.

BackgroundMany research projects in general practice face problems when recruiting patients, often resulting in low recruitment rates and an unknown selection bias, thus limiting their value for health services research. The objective of the study is to evaluate the recruitment performance of the practice staff in 25 participating general practices when using a clinical trial alert (CTA) tool.MethodsThe CTA tool was developed for an osteoporosis survey of patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures. The tool used data from electronic patient records (EPRs) to automatically identify the population at risk (net sample), to apply eligibility criteria, to contact eligible patients, to enrol and survey at least 200 patients per practice. The effects of the CTA intervention were evaluated on the basis of recruitment efficiency and selection bias.ResultsThe CTA tool identified a net sample of 16,067 patients (range 162 to 1,316 per practice), of which the practice staff reviewed 5,161 (32%) cases for eligibility. They excluded 3,248 patients and contacted 1,913 patients. Of these, 1,526 patients (range 4 to 202 per practice) were successfully enrolled and surveyed. This made up 9% of the net sample and 80% of the patients contacted. Men and older patients were underrepresented in the study population.ConclusionAlthough the recruitment target was unreachable for most practices, the practice staff in the participating practices used the CTA tool successfully to identify, document and survey a large patient sample. The tool also helped the research team to precisely determine a slight selection bias.