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.