Collaborative Amphia Science C19: Optimizing COVID-19 research in the Netherlands

Since March 2020 the Amphia Hospital, Breda in the Netherlands has been at the forefront of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. To assist health professionals and researchers we initiated a task force to optimize COVID-19 related research by coordinating COVID-19 related scientific projects and promoting collaboration between the different disciplines in the Amphia Hospital. Within the task force three separate teams were formed with their own dedicated tasks and responsibilities in the development and use of the COVID-19 database. Approximately fifty COVID-19 related studies have started in the Amphia Hospital. In addition, we participated in a variety of clinical trials for COVID-19-treatment and executed retrospective and observational studies. Moreover, the Amphia Hospital collaborated in national and international cohorts and initiatives because of our COVID-19 database. The joint effort to optimize COVID-19 related research in the Amphia Hospital contributed to improved interdisciplinary collaboration, and promoted new initiatives regarding interdisciplinary research. The task force members experienced equality and professional acknowledgment through the establishment of the Amphia COVID-19 Collaborative Group.

Evaluating Patient Satisfaction of Nurse Practitioner Care in the Hospital Setting: A Qualitative Pilot Study

Aim: The purpose of this study is to develop a tool and assess patient satisfaction with inpatient Nurse Practitioner (NP) care.Design: A 10 item questionnaire was administered to hospital inpatients cared for directly by one of two NP’s.Methods: Patients were given a point of care tablet to answer the survey questions with yes or no. The primary outcomes measured were satisfaction with the hospital NP in quality of care, effective communication, and discharge planning.Results: A total of 19 patients participated in this study. 100% of patients felt that nurse practitioners communicated the plan of care effectively, clearly communicated medication information, answered all questions effectively, and knew what to expect when they went home. Between 80-89.5% of patients understood their discharge goals, what they may need after discharge, and understood what signs and symptoms to look for after discharge. Only 36% reported that they had a primary care provider appointment upon discharge.Conclusions: Results of the questionnaire showed a high level of satisfaction with NP care and identified specific discharge barriers among these hospitalized patients. Determining patient satisfaction with NP care can help direct important performance and improvement activities for healthcare institutions.

Do Representatives Represent you?

Introduction: Representation by a small group of chosen representatives is a common used strategy for decision making within a large heterogeneous group of people. In hospital and first-line setting, we measured the level of representatives-peers agreement for representatives that were selectively chosen by peers and those that were randomly selected.Method: Professionals working in hospital-obstetric and first-line midwifery domains, 23 representatives and 114 represented peers, gave their opinion on obstetric topics by ranking 681 statements on a 10-point Likert scale. Correlations between representatives and peers scores were assessed with Bland-Altman difference plots. Level of agreement was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC) of the difference in statement score.Results: Statement scores of chosen representatives correlated well with their peers (r = 0.91). Fifty percent of representatives and peers scores differed less than 1.9 point. The average representative-peers agreement was 77%. Selectively chosen gynecologists and midwives showed comparable levels of agreement (gyn AUC 0.77 vs. mid AUC 0.75, p = 0.105), whereas randomly selected professionals tend to differ in professional view (gyn AUC 0.80 vs. mid AUC 0.74, p = 0.052). The selection method led to no differences within the group of gynecologists (chosen AUC 0.77 vs. random AUC 0.80, p = 0.220) and midwives (chosen AUC 0.75 vs. random AUC 0.74, p = 0.859).Conclusion: Decision making by representatives within a diverse group of professionals, largely reflects the opinion of their peers. The selection method of representatives and the professionals’ working environment do not statistically affect the level of representative-peers agreement.