Cargando…
The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study
BACKGROUND: The Dutch National Immunisation Programme includes six tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccinations and reaches a high rate of vaccination coverage. In the Netherlands, several guidelines related to tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis (T-PEP) are in place. In 2003, the Dutch Health Council (HC) review...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4069364/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24910158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-112 |
_version_ | 1782322535804698624 |
---|---|
author | Donken, Robine van der Maas, Nicoline Swaan, Corien Wiersma, Tjerk te Wierik, Margreet Hahné, Susan de Melker, Hester |
author_facet | Donken, Robine van der Maas, Nicoline Swaan, Corien Wiersma, Tjerk te Wierik, Margreet Hahné, Susan de Melker, Hester |
author_sort | Donken, Robine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Dutch National Immunisation Programme includes six tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccinations and reaches a high rate of vaccination coverage. In the Netherlands, several guidelines related to tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis (T-PEP) are in place. In 2003, the Dutch Health Council (HC) reviewed the use of T-PEP. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the HC recommendations have been implemented. METHODS: We asked 178 Dutch General Practitioner (GP) offices and 60 Emergency Departments (EDs) to participate in a cross-sectional questionnaire study and requested that participating facilities send in the T-PEP guidelines adopted by their practice. The differences, based on categories mentioned in the HC recommendations, between GPs and EDs and the type of T-PEP guidelines adopted were assessed. RESULTS: The response rates for the GPs and EDs were 38% (n = 67) and 70% (n = 42), respectively. 98% percent (n = 107) of the participants reported having T-PEP guidelines. Of the guidelines described in the survey responses, 28% (n = 23; EDs 41%, GPs 21%) were consistent with the HC-recommendations, 36% (n = 29; EDs 7%, GPs 52%) adhered to the guidelines of the College of GPs (CGP), which restricts the use of T-PEP to tetanus prone wounds but for these wounds is in line with the recommendations of the HC. The remaining 36% had adopted other guidelines, most of which can lead to over-prescription of T-PEP. Information on T-PEP was lacking in patients with higher risk vaccination histories. CONCLUSION: Almost all participants have adopted T-PEP guidelines. Strict adherence to the HC recommendations is low. More than half of GPs have adopted the more restrictive CGP-guideline, which limits T-PEP to tetanus prone wounds. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4069364 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40693642014-06-26 The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study Donken, Robine van der Maas, Nicoline Swaan, Corien Wiersma, Tjerk te Wierik, Margreet Hahné, Susan de Melker, Hester BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: The Dutch National Immunisation Programme includes six tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccinations and reaches a high rate of vaccination coverage. In the Netherlands, several guidelines related to tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis (T-PEP) are in place. In 2003, the Dutch Health Council (HC) reviewed the use of T-PEP. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the HC recommendations have been implemented. METHODS: We asked 178 Dutch General Practitioner (GP) offices and 60 Emergency Departments (EDs) to participate in a cross-sectional questionnaire study and requested that participating facilities send in the T-PEP guidelines adopted by their practice. The differences, based on categories mentioned in the HC recommendations, between GPs and EDs and the type of T-PEP guidelines adopted were assessed. RESULTS: The response rates for the GPs and EDs were 38% (n = 67) and 70% (n = 42), respectively. 98% percent (n = 107) of the participants reported having T-PEP guidelines. Of the guidelines described in the survey responses, 28% (n = 23; EDs 41%, GPs 21%) were consistent with the HC-recommendations, 36% (n = 29; EDs 7%, GPs 52%) adhered to the guidelines of the College of GPs (CGP), which restricts the use of T-PEP to tetanus prone wounds but for these wounds is in line with the recommendations of the HC. The remaining 36% had adopted other guidelines, most of which can lead to over-prescription of T-PEP. Information on T-PEP was lacking in patients with higher risk vaccination histories. CONCLUSION: Almost all participants have adopted T-PEP guidelines. Strict adherence to the HC recommendations is low. More than half of GPs have adopted the more restrictive CGP-guideline, which limits T-PEP to tetanus prone wounds. BioMed Central 2014-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4069364/ /pubmed/24910158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-112 Text en Copyright © 2014 Donken et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Donken, Robine van der Maas, Nicoline Swaan, Corien Wiersma, Tjerk te Wierik, Margreet Hahné, Susan de Melker, Hester The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title | The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title_full | The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title_fullStr | The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title_full_unstemmed | The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title_short | The use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
title_sort | use of tetanus post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines by general practitioners and emergency departments in the netherlands: a cross-sectional questionnaire study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4069364/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24910158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-112 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT donkenrobine theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT vandermaasnicoline theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT swaancorien theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT wiersmatjerk theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT tewierikmargreet theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT hahnesusan theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT demelkerhester theuseoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT donkenrobine useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT vandermaasnicoline useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT swaancorien useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT wiersmatjerk useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT tewierikmargreet useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT hahnesusan useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy AT demelkerhester useoftetanuspostexposureprophylaxisguidelinesbygeneralpractitionersandemergencydepartmentsinthenetherlandsacrosssectionalquestionnairestudy |