Search

Objective: We aimed to increase the understanding of the scaling of de-implementation strategies by identifying the determinants of the process and developing a determinant framework., Design and Methods: This study has a mixed-methods design. First, we performed an integrative review to build a literature-based framework describing the determinants of the scaling of healthcare innovations and interventions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant studies from 1995 to December 2020. We systematically extracted the determinants of the scaling of interventions and developed a literature-based framework. Subsequently, this framework was discussed in four focus groups with national and international de-implementation experts. The literature-based framework was complemented by the findings of the focus group meetings and adapted for the scaling of de-implementation strategies., Results: The literature search resulted in 42 articles that discussed the determinants of the scaling of innovations and interventions. No articles described determinants specifically for de-implementation strategies. During the focus groups, all participants agreed on the relevance of the extracted determinants for the scaling of de-implementation strategies. The experts emphasised that while the determinants are relevant for various countries, the implications differ due to different contexts, cultures and histories. The analyses of the focus groups resulted in additional topics and determinants, namely, medical training, professional networks, interests of stakeholders, clinical guidelines and patients' perspectives. The results of the focus group meetings were combined with the literature framework, which together formed the supporting the scaling of de-implementation strategies (SPREAD) framework. The SPREAD framework includes determinants from four domains: (1) scaling plan, (2) external context, (3) de-implementation strategy and (4) adopters., Conclusions: The SPREAD framework describes the determinants of the scaling of de-implementation strategies. These determinants are potential targets for various parties to facilitate the scaling of de-implementation strategies. Future research should validate these determinants of the scaling of de-implementation strategies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries., Methods: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis., Results: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a 'more is better' culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy., Conclusion: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

The authors provide an update of an article about volume standards that was published in this journal in 2013. A systematic literature review uncovered trends in volume-outcomes research (2014-2021): studies focused on outcomes after concentration of care in the Netherlands, attempted to define volume thresholds and assessed whether experience in a specific operation can influence outcomes in similar procedures. Available research still does not shed much light on the mechanisms underlying the volume-outcome relationship. Nevertheless, professional associations look beyond volume and include multiple indicators of quality of care in their national quality standards. Professionals have also increasingly collaborated in regional networks where they share, compare and learn from outcomes. Three preconditions to enhance these efforts in "learning networks" are: the availability of reliable information about treatments and outcomes, adequate knowledge and support in selecting meaningful interventions, and lastly, an ambitious, collective goal which garners support from financiers and government bodies.

Background: Measuring and improving outcomes is a central element of value-based health care. However, selecting improvement interventions based on outcome measures is complex and tools to support the selection process are lacking. The goal was to present strategies for the systematic identification and selection of improvement interventions applied to the case of aortic valve disease and to combine various methods of process and outcome assessment into one integrated approach for quality improvement., Methods: For this case study a concept-driven mixed-method approach was applied for the identification of improvement intervention clusters including: (1) benchmarking outcomes, (2) data exploration, (3) care delivery process analysis, and (4) monitoring of ongoing improvements. The main outcome measures were long-term survival and 30-day mortality. For the selection of an improvement intervention, the causal relations between the potential improvement interventions and outcome measures were quantified followed by a team selection based on consensus from a multidisciplinary team of professionals., Results: The study resulted in a toolbox: the Intervention Selection Toolbox (IST). The toolbox comprises two phases: (a) identifying potential for improvement, and (b) selecting an effective intervention from the four clusters expected to lead to the desired improvement in outcomes. The improvements identified for the case of aortic valve disease with impact on long-term survival in the context of the studied hospital in 2015 include: anticoagulation policy, increased attention to nutritional status of patients and determining frailty of patients before the treatment decision., Conclusions: Identifying potential for improvement and carefully selecting improvement interventions based on (clinical) outcome data demands a multifaceted approach. Our toolbox integrates both care delivery process analyses and outcome analyses. The toolbox is recommended for use in hospital care for the selection of high-impact improvement interventions.

Background: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is a concept that focuses on outcome measurement to contribute to quality improvement. However, VBHC does not offer a systematic approach for implementing improvement as implementation science does. The aim is to, firstly, investigate the implementation of improvement initiatives in the context of VBHC and secondly, to explore how implementation science could be of added value for VBHC and vice versa., Methods: A case study with two cases in heart care was conducted; one without the explicit use of a systematic implementation method and the other one with the use of the Implementation of Change Model (ICM). Triangulation of data from document research, semi-structured interviews and a focus group was applied to evaluate the degree of method uptake. Interviews were held with experts involved in the implementation of Case 1 (N = 4) and Case 2 (N = 7). The focus group was held with experts also involved in the interviews (N = 4). A theory-driven qualitative analysis was conducted using the ICM as a framework., Results: In both cases, outcome measures were seen as an important starting point for the implementation and for monitoring change. Several themes were identified as most important: support, personal importance, involvement, leadership, climate and continuous monitoring. Success factors included intrinsic motivation for the change, speed of implementation, complexity and continuous evaluation., Conclusion: Application of the ICM facilitates successful implementation of quality- improvement initiatives within VBHC. However, the practical use of the ICM shows an emphasis on processes. We recommend that monitoring of outcomes be added as an essential part of the ICM. In the discussion, we propose an implementation model that integrates ICM within VBHC.

Value Based competition in Health Care (VBHC) has become a guiding principle in the quest for high quality health care for acceptable costs. Current literature lacks substantial ethical evaluation of VBHC.In this paper we describe how a single-minded focus on VBHC may cause serious infringements upon at least four medical ethical principles: 1) it tends to neglect patients' personal values; 2) it ignores the intrinsic value of the caring act; 3) it disproportionately replaces trust in professionals with accountability, and 4) it undermines solidarity.Health care needs a next step in VBHC. We suggest a 'Values-Driven Health Care' (VDHC) approach that a) takes patients' personal values as prescriptive and guiding; b) holds a value account that encompasses health care's intrinsic (gift) values; c) is based upon intelligent accountability that supports trust in trustworthy professionals, and d) encourages patients to raise their voices for the shared good of health care.

Background: Although, 33% to 40% of symptomatic gallstone patients reported persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there is no data on the burden of this pain to the healthcare system and society at large. This study determined healthcare consumption, sick leave, and costs in patients with persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Secondly, predictive factors for healthcare consumption were assessed., Methods: This cross-sectional study included all 146 patients with persistent abdominal pain (patient-reported on Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index (score 0-3) 24 weeks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, derived from a previous prospective cohort. Healthcare consumption was assessed using Medical Consumption Questionnaire and medical records, and sick leave using Productivity Cost Questionnaire. Costs were calculated according "Guideline for performing economic evaluations in healthcare." Predictors of healthcare consumption were assessed using logistic regression analysis., Results: In the study, 124/146 patients (85%) responded after mean follow-up of 31.0 months (standard deviation 6.5); 104 were female, mean age of responders was 52 years. Sixty-nine patients needed additional healthcare; 30.6% primary care; 37.1% secondary care; 16% emergency department admission; 8.9% hospital admission; 33.9% diagnostic procedures; 17.7% medication; 5.6% other interventions. Medical costs were $555 (BCa 95% confidence interval, $329-$852) and costs of sick leave were $361 (Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence interval, $189-$566) per year per patient. Younger age (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98) and higher postoperative pain score (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04) were associated with increased healthcare consumption., Conclusion: Persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with additional healthcare in 56% of patients. Yearly, medical costs and costs of sick leave are 20% of the initial costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The term 'lower value services' concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted., Methods: Dutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease., Results: A total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted., Conclusions: In this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them.

Massachusetts and the Netherlands have implemented comprehensive health reforms, which have heightened the importance of performance measurement. The performance measures addressing access to health care and patient experience are similar in the two jurisdictions, but measures of processes and outcomes of care differ considerably. In both jurisdictions, the use of health outcomes to compare the quality of health care organizations is limited, and specific information about costs is lacking. New legislation in both jurisdictions led to the establishment of public agencies to monitor the quality of care, similar mandates to make the performance of health care providers transparent, and to establish a shared responsibility of providers, consumers and insurers to improve the quality of health care. In Massachusetts a statewide mandatory quality measure set was established to monitor the quality of care. The Netherlands is stimulating development of performance measures by providers based on a mandatory framework for developing such measures. Both jurisdictions are expanding the use of patient-reported outcomes to support patient care, quality improvement, and performance comparisons with the aim of explicitly linking performance to new payment incentives., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The sharply increasing costs of healthcare in the Netherlands are a huge problem and pose a serious threat for the sustainability of care in this country. The question is whether all treatments really do add value. Many of the treatments now provided are not indicated, or are even contraindicated. Combating superfluous healthcare provision is an important solution for improving quality and reducing costs. This is the responsibility of all involved, with doctors playing a leading role. We propose an active role for the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) and all scientific associations.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present and illustrate an instrument to measure the level of innovation at country level., Methods: The data used are the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health data 2009, in particular the information on use of medical technology. Two composite scales expressing a relative level of adoption of innovations in health care are regressed, using multilevel regression analysis, on country characteristics. The country characteristics are selected as proxies on availability or scarcity of resources in a country. We expect that scarcity will promote adoption of innovations that enhance efficiency, and that availability of resources will promote advanced, expensive innovations., Results: Two scales were constructed. One scale indicates the use of efficiency-enhancing innovations (day case treatment), and the other scale indicates availability of advanced technical innovations. The application of day case treatment is significantly associated with education level (+), the ratio of people aged 15-64 versus younger and older people (+) and the number of hospital beds (-). Availability of advanced medical devices are associated with the expenditure on health (+), demographic dependency (-), number of hospital beds (+), and the annual reduction of hospital beds (-)., Conclusions: Diffusion of innovations is influenced by characteristics of the country and of the healthcare system; fewer resources encourage diffusion of innovations that enhance efficiency and more resources encourage diffusion of complex, expensive devices. This indicates that decisions by healthcare professionals on which innovation to adopt is embedded in a context that is influenced and shaped by the availability of resources on macro level.

Issues: The Health Care Quality Indicator (HCQI) Project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is aimed at developing a set of indicators for comparing the quality of health care across OECD member countries, requires a balanced conceptual framework that outlines the main concepts and domains of performance that should be captured for the current and subsequent phases of the project., Addressing the Issues: This article develops a conceptual framework for the OECD's HCQI Project. It first argues that developing such a framework should start by addressing the question, 'performance of what-and to what ends?' We identify at least two different major classes of frameworks: (i) health and (ii) health care performance frameworks, both of which are in common use. For the HCQI, we suggest a conceptual framework that is largely a purposeful modification of the existing performance frameworks and which is driven by the health determinants model., Conclusions: The conceptual basis for performance frameworks can be traced back to the health determinants model. A health performance framework takes a broader, societal or public health view of health determination, whereas a health care performance takes a narrower, mostly clinical or technical view of health care in relation to health (needs). This article proposes an HCQI framework that focuses on the quality of health care, maintains a broader perspective on health and its other determinants, and recognizes the key aims of health policy.