Search

Background: The PACE Steps to Success programme is a complex educational and development intervention to improve palliative care in nursing homes. Little research has investigated processes in the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of interventions in palliative care across countries, taking account of differences in health and social care systems, legal and regulatory policies, and cultural norms. This paper describes a framework for the cross-cultural development and support necessary to implement such an intervention, taking the PACE Steps to Success programme as an exemplar.Methods: The PACE Steps to Success programme was implemented as part of the PACE cluster randomised control trial in seven European countries. A three stage approach was used, a) preparation of resources; b) training in the intervention using a train-the-trainers model; and c) cascading support throughout the implementation. All stages were underpinned by cross-cultural adaptation, including recognising legal and cultural norms, sensitivities and languages. This paper draws upon collated evidence from minutes of international meetings, evaluations of training delivered, interviews with those delivering the intervention in nursing homes and providing and/or receiving support.Results: Seventy eight nursing homes participated in the trial, with half randomized to receive the intervention, 3638 nurses/care assistants were identified at baseline. In each country, 1-3 trainers were selected (total n = 16) to deliver the intervention. A framework was used to guide the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation. Adaptation of three English training resources for different groups of staff consisted of simplification of content, identification of validated implementation tools, a review in 2 nursing homes in each country, and translation into local languages. The same training was provided to all country trainers who cascaded it into intervention nursing homes in local languages, and facilitated it via in-house PACE coordinators. Support was cascaded from country trainers to staff implementing the intervention.Conclusions: There is little guidance on how to adapt complex interventions developed in one country and language to international contexts. This framework for cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of a complex educational and development intervention may be useful to others seeking to transfer quality improvement initiatives in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the early 1980s all European countries have given priority to reforming the management of health services. A distinctive feature of these reforms has also been the drive to co-opt professionals themselves into the management of services, taking on full time or part time (hybrid) management or leadership roles. However, although these trends are well documented in the literature, our understanding of the nature and impact of reforms and how they are re-shaping the relationship between medicine and management remains limited. Most studies have tended to be nationally specific, located within a single discipline and focused primarily on describing new management practices. This article serves as an Introduction to a special issue of BMC Health Services Research which seeks to address these concerns. It builds on the work of a European Union funded COST Action (ISO903) which ran between 2009 and 2013, focusing specifically on the changing relationship between medicine and management in a European context.Main Text: Prior to describing the contributions to the special issue, this Introduction sets the scene by exploring four main questions which have characterised much of the recent literature on medicine and management. First is the question of what we understand by the changing relationship between medicine and management and in particular which this means for the emergence of so called 'hybrid' clinical leader roles? A second question concerns the forces that have driven change, in particular those relating to the wider project of management reforms. Third, we raise questions of how medical professionals have responded to these changes and what factors have shaped their responses. Lastly we consider what some of the outcomes of greater medical involvement in management and leadership might be, both in terms of intended and unintended outcomes.Conclusions: The paper concludes by summarising the contributions to the special issue and highlighting the need to extend research in this area by focusing more on comparative dimensions of change. It is argued that future research would also benefit theoretically by drawing together insights from health policy and management literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: How future doctors might be educated and trained in order to meet the population and system needs of countries is currently being debated. Incorporation of a broad range of capabilities, encompassed within categories of management and, increasingly, leadership, form part of this discussion. The purpose of this paper is to outline a framework by which countries' progress in this area might be assessed and compared.Methods: Key databases and journals related to this area were reviewed. From relevant articles potential factors impacting on the incorporation of aspects of management and leadership within medical education and training were identified. These factors were tested via an online survey during 2013 with six members of a European Association of doctors who promote medical involvement in hospital management, including members from countries less represented in the health management literature.Results: A framework for analysing how management and leadership education is being approached within different systems of healthcare is developed and presented.Conclusions: More systematic work across a wider range of countries is needed if we are to have a better understanding of how countries within and beyond Europe are approaching and progressing the education of doctors in management and leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The organization of long-term care is one of the main challenges of public health and health policies in Europe and worldwide, especially in terms of care concepts for people with dementia. In Austria and the Czech Republic the majority of elderly institutionalized persons with dementia are cared for in nursing homes. It is however unclear, how many persons living in nursing homes in Austria and in the Czech Republic are suffering from cognitive impairment and dementia. In addition, basic information on the nutritional status, the status of mobility and the medication prescription patterns are often missing. To facilitate new effective and evidenced based care concepts, basic epidemiological data are in urgent need. Thus, DEMDATA was initiated to provide important basic data on persons living in nursing homes in Austria and the Czech Republic for future care planning.Methods: DEMDATA is a multicentre mixed methods cross-sectional study. Stratified and randomly drawn nursing homes in Austria and the Czech Republic are surveyed. The study protocol used in both study centres assesses four different domains: a) Resident, b) Care team, c) Relative and d) Environmental Factors. Resident's data include among others health status, cognition, dementia, mobility, nutrition, behavioural symptoms, pain intensity and quality of life. A minimum of 500 residents per country are included into the study (N = 1000 residents). The care team is asked about the use of the person-centred care and their burden. The relatives are asked about the number of visits and proxy-rate the quality of life of their family member. All staff employed in the nursing homes, all residents and relatives can voluntary take part in the study. The environmental factors include among others the organisational category of the nursing home, number of residents, number of rooms, social activities and the care concept. The project started in March 2016 and will be concluded in February 2018.Discussion: DEMDATA will provide important epidemiological data on four different nursing home domains in Austria and the Czech Republic, with a focus on the prevalence of dementia in this population. Thereby supplying decision and policy makers with important foundation for future care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Policymakers and researchers frequently compare the prices of medicines between countries. Such comparisons often serve as barometers of how pricing and reimbursement policies are performing. The aim of this study was to examine methodological challenges to comparing generic drug prices.Methods: We calculated all commonly used price indices based on 2013 IMS Health data on sales of 3156 generic drugs in seven European countries.Results: There were large differences in generic drug prices between countries. However, the results varied depending on the choice of index, base country, unit of volume, method of currency conversion, and therapeutic category. The results also differed depending on whether one looked at the prices charged by manufacturers or those charged by pharmacists.Conclusions: Price indices are a useful statistical approach for comparing drug prices across countries, but researchers and policymakers should interpret price indices with caution given their limitations. Price-index results are highly sensitive to the choice of method and sample. More research is needed to determine the drivers of price differences between countries. The data suggest that some governments should aim to reduce distribution costs for generic drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In mental health services what is commonplace across international frontiers is that to prevent aggressive patients from harming themselves, other patients or staff, coercive measures and foremost, violence management strategies are required. There is no agreement, recommendations or direction from the EU on which measures of coercion should be practiced across EU countries, and there is no overall one best practice approach.Methods: The project was conceived through an expert group, the European Violence in Psychiatry Research Group (EViPRG). The study aimed to incorporate an EU and multidisciplinary response in the determination of violence management practices and related research and education priorities across 17 European countries. From the EVIPRG members, one member from each country agreed to act as the national project coordinator for their country. Given the international spread of respondents, an eDelphi survey approach was selected for the study design and data collection. A survey instrument was developed, agreed and validated through members of EVIPRG.Results: The results included a total of 2809 respondents from 17 countries with 999 respondents who self-selected for round 2 eDelphi. The majority of respondents worked in acute psychiatry, 54% (n = 1511); outpatient departments, 10.5% (n = 295); and Forensic, 9.3% (n = 262). Other work areas of respondents include Rehabilitation, Primary Care and Emergency. It is of concern that 19.5% of respondents had not received training on violence management. The most commonly used interventions in the management of violent patients were physical restraint, seclusion and medications. The top priorities for education and research included: preventing violence; the influence of environment and staff on levels of violence; best practice in managing violence; risk assessment and the aetiology and triggers for violence and aggression.Conclusion: In many European countries there is an alarming lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to violence management in mental health services. Violence management practices in Europe appear to be fragmented with no identified ideological position or collaborative education and research. In Europe, language differences are a reality and may have contributed to insular thinking, however, it must not be seen as a barrier to sharing best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health promotion interventions for older adults are important as they can decrease the onset and evolution of diseases and thus can reduce the medical costs related to those diseases. However, there is no comparative evidence on how those interventions are funded in European countries. The aim of this study is to explore the funding of health promotion interventions in general and health promotion interventions for older adults in particular in European countries.Method: We use desk research to identify relevant sources of information such as official national documents, international databases and scientific articles. Fora descriptive overview on how health promotion is funded, we focus on three dimensions: who is funding health promotion, what are the contribution mechanisms and who are the collecting agents. In addition to general information on funding of health promotion, we explore how programs on health promotion for older population groups are funded.Results: There is a great diversity in funding of health promotion in European countries. Although public sources (tax and social health insurance revenues) are still most often used, other mechanisms of funding such as private donations or European funds are also common. Furthermore, there is no clear pattern in the funding of health promotion for different population groups. This is of particular importance for health promotion for older adults where information is limited across European countries.Conclusions: This study provides an overview of funding of health promotion interventions in European countries. The main obstacles for funding health promotion interventions are lack of information and the fragmentation in the funding of health promotion interventions for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The interRAI-Home Care (interRAI-HC) instrument is commonly used in routine care to assess care and service needs, resource utilisation and health outcomes of community dwelling home care clients. Potentially, the interRAI-HC can also be used to calculate societal costs in economic evaluations. The purpose of this study was to assess the convergent validity of the interRAI-HC instrument in comparison with the RUD Lite instrument for the calculation of societal costs among care-dependent community dwelling older adults.Methods: A within-subject design was used. Participants were 65 years and older and received professional community care in five countries. The RUD Lite was administered by trained (research) nurses or self-reports within 4 weeks after the interRAI-HC assessment. Agreement between the interRAI-HC and RUD Lite estimates was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients. We hypothesised that there was strong correlation (Spearman's ρ > 0.5) between resource utilisation estimates, costs of care estimates and total societal cost estimates derived from both instruments.Results: Strong correlation was found between RUD Lite and interRAI-HC resource utilisation assessments for eight out of ten resource utilisation items. Total societal costs according to the RUD Lite were statistically significantly lower than according to the interRAI-HC (mean difference €-804, 95 % CI -1340; -269). The correlation between the instruments for total societal costs and all six cost categories was strong.Conclusions: The interRAI-HC has good convergent validity as compared with the RUD-Lite instrument to estimate societal cost of resource utilisation in community dwelling older adults. Since interRAI-HC assessments are part of routine care in many community care organisations and countries already, this finding may increase the feasibility of performing economic evaluations among community dwelling older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We know little about how procurement of a high-risk medical device (HRMD) affects clinical practice and outcomes. In health systems in high-income countries, and specifically those that maintain a national arthroplasty registry, procurement decisions are frequently guided by long-term clinical results, with the goal of ensuring at least standard quality of HRMDs. But in countries like Mexico, decision-making is often dominated by lowest acquisition price. We set out to study the impact of procurement for orthopaedic HRMDs on clinical procedures and outcomes.Methods: We based our qualitative study on 59 in-depth interviews with stakeholders from Mexico, Switzerland, Germany, and UK: orthopaedic specialists, government officials, other experts, and social security system managers or administrators. We took a healthcare delivery approach to capturing and comparing factors that affected the regulations of HRMDs and procurement processes, and to understanding connections between procurement and clinical practice.Results: Our findings demonstrate for procurement processes that the three European countries compared to Mexico don't have similar concerns with regards to their procurement processes. Deficiencies of procurement regulations and practices identified from representatives in Mexico were almost absent in European countries. We identified three areas of deficiency: 1) HRMD regulations based on insufficiently robust clinical evidence (mainly noted by European countries); 2) Follow-up on Health Technology Assessments is inadequate (noted by Mexico) and methodology not always good enough (noted by European countries); and, 3) Lowest-acquisition price often guides procurement decisions and thus may not align with needs of clinical procedures (noted by Mexico and some European countries).Conclusions: Procurement processes for orthopaedic HRMDs may have an impact on clinical procedures and outcomes. A favourable approach is one where orthopaedic specialists are parties to the procurement process, and post-market surveillance data informs decision-making. Actors in the procurement process can improve their impact on clinical procedures and outcomes by developing specific strategies that better align the needs of both, procurement and clinical procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In accordance the WHO framework of health system functions and by using the indicators collected within the EURO-HEALTHY project, this work aims to contribute to the discussion on the classification of EU health systems.Methods: Three methods were used in this article: factor analysis, cluster analysis and descriptive analysis; data were mainly collected from the WHO and Eurostat databases.Results: The most relevant result is the proposed classification of health systems into the following clusters: Austria-Germany, Central and Northern Countries, Southern Countries, Eastern Countries 'A' and Eastern Countries 'B'.Conclusions: The proposed typology contributes to the discussion about how to classify health systems; the typology of EU health systems allows comparisons of characteristics and health system performance across clusters and policy assessment and policy recommendation within each cluster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]