Background The demand on Emergency Departments and acute medical services is increasing internationally, creating pressure on health systems and negatively influencing the quality of delivered care. Visible consequences of the increased demand on acute services is crowding and queuing. This manifests as delays in the Emergency Departments, adverse clinical outcomes and poor patient experience. Overview Despite the similarities in the UK’s and Dutch health care systems, such as universal health coverage, there are differences in the number of patients presenting at the Emergency Departments and the burden of crowding between these countries. Given the similarities in funding, this paper explores the similarities and differences in the organisational structure of acute care in the UK and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, less patients are seen at the ED than in England and the admission rate is higher. GPs and so-called GP-posts serve 24/7 as gatekeepers in acute care, but EDs are heterogeneously organised. In the UK, the acute care system has a number of different access points and the accessibility of GPs seems to be suboptimal. Acute ambulatory care may relieve the pressure from EDs and Acute Medical Units. In both countries the ageing population leads to a changing case mix at the ED with an increased amount of multimorbid patients with polypharmacy, requiring generalistic and multidisciplinary care. Conclusion The acute and emergency care in the Netherlands and the UK face similar challenges. We believe that each system has strengths that the other can learn from. The Netherlands may benefit from an acute ambulatory care system and the UK by optimizing the accessibility of GPs 24/7 and improving signposting for urgent care services. In both countries the changing case mix at the ED needs doctors who are superspecialists instead of subspecialists. Finally, to improve the organisation of health care, doctors need to be visible medical leaders and participate in the organisation of care.

e From 2007 to 2010, the Netherlands experienced the largest reported Q fever outbreak, with >4,000 notified cases. We showed previously that C-reactive protein is the only traditional infection marker reflecting disease activity in acute Q fever. Interleukin-6 is the principal inducer of C-reactive protein. We questioned whether increased C-reactive protein levels in acute Q fever patients coincide with increased interleukin-6 levels and if these levels correlate with the Coxiella burnetii DNA load in serum. In addition, we studied their correlation with disease severity, expressed by hospital admission and the development of fatigue. Interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels were analyzed in sera from 102 patients diagnosed with seronegative PCR-positive acute Q fever. Significant but weak negative correlations were observed between bacterial DNA loads expressed as cycle threshold values and interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels, while a significant moderate-strong positive correlation was present between interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels. Furthermore, significantly higher interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels were observed in hospitalized acute Q fever patients in comparison to those in nonhospitalized patients, while bacterial DNA loads were the same in the two groups. No marker was prognostic for the development of fatigue. In conclusion, the correlation between interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels in acute Q fever patients points to an immune activation pathway in which interleukin-6 induces the production of C-reactive protein. Significant differences in interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients despite identical bacterial DNA loads suggest an important role for host factors in disease presentation. Higher interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels seem predictive of more severe disease.

Background Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. Methods This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. Results The most reported answers to “what matters most (and why)?” were ‘getting better or being in good health’ (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), ‘getting home’ (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and ‘having a diagnosis’ (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Conclusions The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals’ own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. Trial registration NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538.

Little is known about the impact of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and no disease-specific questionnaire exists. This qualitative study aimed to identify relevant domains of HRQoL for patients with ACC. In 2 focus group interviews, we discussed concerns regarding living with ACC and its treatments. The first group consisted of 6 patients on mitotane therapy and their partners or relatives, the second group of 4 patients after surgery alone and their partners. Inductive qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the interviews. We identified 4 domains related to HRQoL in patients with ACC, namely physical complaints, mental consequences, social consequences, and functional limitations. For example, physical complaints included symptoms of the disease and side effects of mitotane therapy; mental consequences included feeling insecure and living from scan to scan; and functional limitations included daily activities and mobility. We further found that patients’ experiences with the health care system and health care professionals and partner perspectives influence HRQoL. In conclusion, ACC has a large impact on HRQoL in 4 domains. These results can be used to improve communication about HRQoL issues. We will use our findings to generate a disease-specific questionnaire to measure HRQoL in patients with ACC.