Table 3

Outcomes of the implementation of the ZWIP
End of implementation: 1 July, 2011 General practice 1 General practice 2 General practice 3 General practice 4 General practice 5 General practice 6 General practice 7 Total
Number of older people screened, n 705 365 284 426 200 621 169 2770
Number of older people screened who were frail, n (%) 71 (10.1) 80 (21.9) 49 (17.3) 116 (27.2) 25 (12.5) 213 (34.3) 43 (25.4) 597 (21.6)
Number of frail older people participating in the ZWIP, n (%) 61 (85.9) 25 (31.3) 11 (22.4) 55 (47.4) 8 (32.0) 118 (55.4) 12 (27.9) 290 (48.6)
 Female, n (%) 34 (55.7) 15 (60.0) 4 (36.8) 40 (72.7) 6 (75.0) 73 (61.9) 10 (83.3) 182 (62.8)
 Age, mean (SD) 81.8 (5.4) 81.6 (4.8) 79.2 (5.8) 80.2 (6.2) 82.5 (7.5) 81.1 (5.6) 82.8 (7.5) 81.2 (5.7)
Number of frail older people in the ZWIP who logged on to the ZWIP once, n (%) 9 (14.8) 2 (8.0) 2 (18.2) 8 (14.5) 3 (37.5) 18 (15.3) 1 (8.3) 43 (14.8)
Number of frail older people in the ZWIP who logged on to the ZWIP more than once, n (%) 25 (41.0) 17 (68.0) 5 (45.5) 23 (41.8) 5 (62.5) 36 (30.5) 6 (50.0) 117 (40.3)
Number of professionals participating in the ZWIP, n 31 17 25 43 16 30 16 169f
 Female, n (%) 21 (67.7) 12 (70.6) 18 (72.0) 33 (76.7) 12 (75.0) 23 (76.7) 13 (81.3) 126 (74.6)
 Occupation, n (%)
  General practitioner 6 (19.4) 4 (23.5) 9 (36.0) 8 (18.6) 5 (31.3) 9 (30.0) 3 (18.8) 42 (24.9)
  Practice nurse 0 (0.0) 1 (5.9) 1 (4.0) 1 (2.3) 1 (6.3) 6 (20.0) 1 (6.3) 13 (7.7)
  District nurse 7 (22.6) 1 (5.9) 3 (12.0) 8 (18.6) 2 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 4 (25.0) 24 (14.2)
  Pharmacist 1 (3.2) 1 (5.9) 2 (8.0) 6 (14.0) 2 (12.5) 1 (3.3) 3 (18.8) 15 (8.9)
  Physiotherapist 7 (22.6) 4 (23.5) 3 (12.0) 6 (14.0) 3 (18.8) 5 (16.7) 2 (12.5) 30 (17.8)
  (Gerontological) social worker 1 (3.2) 2 (11.8) 3 (12.0) 2 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.3) 1 (6.3) 9 (5.3)
  Hospital-based specialist 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.0) 2 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (1.8)
  Other 8 (25.8) 4 (23.5) 3 (12.0) 10 (43.3) 3 (18.8) 8 (26.7) 2 (12.5) 33 (19.5)
Number of professionals in the ZWIP of a frail older person, mean (range) 2.5 (0–5)a 4.1 (0–8)b 1.9 (0–4) 1.8 (0–5) 4.1 (2–6) 2.6 (1–6)d 3.0 (1–5) 2.6 (0–8)g
Number of professionals in the ZWIP who logged on to the ZWIP once, n (%) 2 (6.5) 1 (5.9) 2 (8.0) 7 (16.7)c 2 (12.5) 3 (10.3)e 8 (50.0) 25 (15.0)h
Number of professionals in the ZWIP who logged on to the ZWIP more than once, n (%) 22 (71.0) 14 (82.4) 20 (80.0) 26 (61.9)c 11 (68.8) 23 (79.3)e 6 (37.5) 116 (69.5)h
Number of messages sent in the ZWIP by professionals, mean (range) 3.6 (0–24) 5.7 (0–46) 0.3 (0–5) 1.3 (0–17)c 0.3 (0–3) 0.9 (0–6)e 0.7 (0–9) 1.9 (0–46)h
Number of messages sent in the ZWIP by frail older people and informal caregivers, mean (range) 1.2 (0–21) 3.2 (0–31) 0.6 (0–2) 0.9 (0–34) 0.1 (0–1) 0.1 (0–4) 0.2 (0–1) 0.8 (0–34)
Number of frail older people in whose ZWIP ≥ 5 messages have been sent, n (%) 7 (11.5) 8 (32.0) 2 (18.2) 3 (5.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.8) 0 (0.0) 21 (7.2)

ZWIP = Health and Welfare Information Portal; an = 46; bn = 24; cn = 42; dn = 117; en = 29; fas some professionals were involved in the network of more than one general practice, the total number of professionals is less than the sum of professionals in all general practices; gn = 273; hn = 167.

Robben et al.

Robben et al. BMC Health Services Research 2012 12:251   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-251

Open Data