Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common chronic condition and a rising public health issue with increased morbidity and mortality, even at an early stage. Primary care has a pivotal role in the early detection and in the integrated management of CKD which should be of high quality. The quality of care for CKD can be assessed using quality indicators (QIs) and if these QIs are extractable from the electronic medical record (EMR) of the general physician, the number of patients whose quality of care can be evaluated, could increase vastly. Therefore the aim of this study is to develop QIs which are evidence based, EMR extractable and which can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment. Methods: We used a Rand-modified Delphi method to develop QIs for CKD in primary care. A questionnaire was designed by extracting recommendations from international guidelines based on the SMART principle and the EMR extractability. A multidisciplinary expert panel, including patients, individually scored the recommendations for measuring high quality care on a 9-point Likert scale. The results were analyzed based on the median Likert score, prioritization and agreement. Subsequently, the recommendations were discussed in a consensus meeting for their in-or exclusion. After a final appraisal by the panel members this resulted in a core set of recommendations, which were then transformed into QIs. Results: A questionnaire composed of 99 recommendations was extracted from 10 international guidelines. The consensus meeting resulted in a core set of 36 recommendations that were translated into 36 QIs. This final set consists of QIs concerning definition & classification, screening, diagnosis, management consisting of follow up, treatment & vaccination, medication & patient safety and referral to a specialist. It were mostly the patients participating in the panel who stressed the importance of the QIs concerning medication & patient safety and a timely referral to a specialist. Conclusion: This study provides a set of 36 EMR extractable QIs for measuring the quality of primary care for CKD. These QIs can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment for CKD in primary care.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The aim of this systematic review is 1) to assess whether electronic audit and feedback (A&F) is effective in primary care and 2) to evaluate important features concerning content and delivery of the feedback in primary care, including the use of benchmarks, the frequency of feedback, the cognitive load of feedback and the evidence-based aspects of the feedback. Data sources The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles published since 2010 by replicating the search strategy used in the last Cochrane review on A&F. Study selection Two independent reviewers assessed the records for their eligibility, performed the data extraction and evaluated the risk of bias. Our search resulted in 8,744 records, including the 140 RCTs from the last Cochrane Review. The full texts of 431 articles were assessed to determine their eligibility. Finally, twenty-nine articles were included. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted standard data, data on the effectiveness and outcomes of the interventions, data on the kind of electronic feedback (static versus interactive) and data on the aforementioned feedback features. Results of data synthesis Twenty-two studies (76%) showed that electronic A&F was effective. All interventions targeting medication safety, preventive medicine, cholesterol management and depression showed an effect. Approximately 70% of the included studies used benchmarks and high-quality evidence in the content of the feedback. In almost half of the studies the cognitive load of feedback was not reported. Due to high heterogeneity in the results, no meta-analysis was performed. Conclusion This systematic review included 29 articles examining electronic A&F interventions in primary care, and 76% of the interventions were effective. Our findings suggest electronic A&F is effective in primary care for different conditions such as medication safety and preventive medicine. Some of the benefits of electronic A&F include its scalability and the potential to be cost effective. The use of benchmarks as comparators and feedback based on high-quality evidence, are widely used and important features of electronic feedback in primary care. However, other important features such as the cognitive load of feedback and the frequency of feedback provision are poorly described in the design of many electronic A&F intervention, indicating that a better description or implementation of these features is needed. Developing a framework or methodology for automated A&F interventions in primary care could be useful for future research.

Introduction The Covid-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on healthcare but uncertainty remains about the extent to which primary care provision was affected. Therefore, this paper aims to assess the impact on primary care provision and the evolution of the incidence of disease during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic in Flanders (Belgium). Methods Care provision was defined as the number of new entries added to a patient’s medical history. Pre-pandemic care provision (February 1, 2018–January 31, 2020) was compared with care provision during the pandemic (February 1, 2020-January 31, 2021). A large morbidity registry (Intego) was used. Regression models compared the effect of demographic characteristics on care provision and on acute and chronic diagnoses incidence both prior and during the pandemic. Results During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, overall care provision increased with 9.1% (95%CI 8.5%;9.6%). There was an increase in acute diagnoses of 5.1% (95%CI 4.2%;6.0%) and a decrease in the selected chronic diagnoses of 12.8% (95% CI 7.0%;18.4%). Obesity was an exception with an overall incidence increase. The pandemic led to strong fluctuations in care provision that were not the same for all types of care and all demographic groups in Flanders. Relative to other groups in the population, the pandemic caused a reduction in care provision for children aged 0–17 year and patients from a lower socio-economic situation. Conclusion This paper strengthened the claim that Covid-19 should be considered as a syndemic instead of a pandemic. During the first Covid-19 year, overall care provision and the incidence of acute diagnoses increased, whereas chronic diseases’ incidence decreased, except for obesity diagnoses which increased. More granular, care provision and chronic diseases’ incidence decreased during the lockdowns, especially for people with a lower socio-economic status. After the lockdowns they both returned to baseline.