General implementation of an intensive in-patient and community intervention programme for suicide attempters does not seem justified.

Higher actual postoperative pain scores and unacceptable pain, even on the first postoperative day, are associated with more postoperative complications. Our findings provide important support for the centrality of personalized analgesia in modern perioperative care.

BackgroundClinical experience teaches us that patients are willing to accept postoperative pain, despite high pain intensity scores. Nevertheless, relationships between pain scores and other methods of pain assessment, e.g. acceptability of pain or its interference with physical functioning, are not fully established. Our aims were to examine these relationships.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who underwent major surgery between January 2008 and August 2013. Using logistic regression, we quantified the relationships between movement-evoked pain scores on the numerical rating scale (NRS-MEP) and three dichotomous dependent variables: patient’s opinion on acceptability of pain (PO: acceptable or unacceptable pain); nurses’ observation of patient’s performance of necessary activities to expedite recovery (NO: good or bad performance); a compound measure judging the presence of the clinically desirable situation of acceptable pain associated with good patients’ performance (PONO: present or not). Using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis, NRS cut-off points were determined such that they best discriminate between patients having one versus the other outcome for PO, NO and PONO.Results15,394 assessments were obtained in 9,082 patients in the first three postoperative days. Nine percent of the patients had unacceptable pain while having an NRS-MEP of 0–4. An estimated 47% (95%CI = 45%-49%) of patients with an NRS-MEP of 7 described their pain as acceptable on day one. Moreover, 33% (31%-35%) performed all required physical activities, and 22% (21%-24%) combined acceptable pain with appropriate movement. NRS cut-off points for PO, NO and PONO were five, four and four, respectively, but had insufficient discriminatory power.ConclusionsOur results suggest pain management should be guided by the many dimensions of the patient’s pain experience, not solely by NRS cut-off points. Future research should evaluate the impact of such multidimensional pain assessment on patients’ functional outcome.

Background: Leaders are needed to address healthcare changes essential for implementation of integrated primary care. What kind of leadership this needs, which professionals should fulfil this role and how these leaders can be supported remains unclear. Objectives: To review the literature on the effectiveness of programmes to support leadership, the relationship between clinical leadership and integrated primary care, and important leadership skills for integrated primary care practice. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO until June 2018 for empirical studies situated in an integrated primarycare setting, regarding clinical leadership, leadership skills, support programmes and integrated-care models. Two researchers independently selected relevant studies and critically appraised studies on methodological quality, summarized data and mapped qualitative data on leadership skills. Results: Of the 3207 articles identified, 56 were selected based on abstract and title, from which 20 met the inclusion criteria. Selected papers were of mediocre quality. Two non-controlled studies suggested that leadership support programmes helped prepare and guide leaders and positively contributed to implementation of integrated primary care. There was little support that leaders positively influence implementation of integrated care. Leaders’ relational and organizational skills as well as process-management and change-management skills were considered important to improve care integration. Physicians seemed to be the most adequate leaders. Conclusion: Good quality research on clinical leadership in integrated primary care is scarce. More profound knowledge is needed about leadership skills, required for integrated-care implementation, and leadership support aimed at developing these skills.

BackgroundIn the western world, a growing number of the older people live at home. In the Netherlands, GPs are expected to play a pivotal role in the organization of integrated care for this patient group. However, little is known about how GPs can play this role best. Our aim for this study was to unravel how GPs can play a successful role in elderly care, in particular in multidisciplinary teams, and to define key concepts for success.MethodsA mixed qualitative research model in four multidisciplinary teams for elderly care in the Netherlands was used. With these four teams, consisting of 46 health care and social service professionals, we carried out two rounds of focus-group interviews. Moreover, we performed semi-structured interviews with four GPs. We analysed data using a hybrid inductive/deductive thematic analysis.ResultsAccording to the health care and social service professionals in our study, the role of GPs in multidisciplinary teams for elderly care was characterized by the ability to ‘see the bigger picture’. We identified five key activities that constitute a successful GP role: networking, facilitating, team building, integrating care elements, and showing leadership. Practice setting and phase of multidisciplinary team development influenced the way in which GPs fulfilled their roles. According to team members, GPs were the central professionals in care services for older people. The opinions of GPs about their own roles were diverse.ConclusionsGPs took an important role in successful care settings for older people. Five key concepts seemed to be important for best practices in care for frail older people: networking (community), facilitating (organization), team building (professional), integrating care elements (patient), and leadership (personal). Team members from primary care and social services indicated that GPs had an indispensable role in such teams. It would be advantageous for GPs to be aware of this attributed role. Attention to leadership competencies and to the diversity of roles in multidisciplinary teams in GP training programmes seems useful. The challenge is to convince GPs to take a lead, also when they are not inclined to take this role in organizing multidisciplinary teams for older people.