Search

Purpose: Comparing the quality of care provided by a hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up unit with care as usual., Patients and Methods: This randomized controlled trial included stable glaucoma patients and patients at risk for developing glaucoma. Patients in the Usual Care group (n=410) were seen by glaucoma specialists. In the glaucoma follow-up unit group (n=405), patients visited the glaucoma follow-up unit twice followed by a visit to a glaucoma specialist. The main outcome measures were: compliance to the working protocol by glaucoma follow-up unit employees; difference in intraocular pressure between baseline and at ≥18 months; and patient satisfaction., Results: Glaucoma follow-up unit employees closely adhered to the working protocol for the measurement of intraocular pressure, visual acuity and GDx (≥97.5% of all visits). Humphrey Field Analyzer examinations were not performed as frequently as prescribed by the working protocol, but more often than in the Usual Care group. In a small minority of patients that required back-referral, the protocol was disregarded, notably when criteria were only slightly exceeded. There was no statistically significant difference in changes in intraocular pressure between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.854). Patients were slightly more satisfied with the glaucoma follow-up unit employees than with the glaucoma specialists (scores: 8.56 vs. 8.40; P=0.006)., Conclusions: In general, the hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up closely observed its working protocol and patients preferred it slightly over the usual care provided by medical doctors. The glaucoma follow-up unit operated satisfactorily and might serve as a model for shared care strategies elsewhere.

Background: Population aging increases the number of glaucoma patients which leads to higher workloads of glaucoma specialists. If stable glaucoma patients were monitored by optometrists and ophthalmic technicians in a glaucoma follow-up unit (GFU) rather than by glaucoma specialists, the specialists' workload and waiting lists might be reduced.We compared costs and quality of care at the GFU with those of usual care by glaucoma specialists in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) in a 30-month randomized clinical trial. Because quality of care turned out to be similar, we focus here on the costs., Methods: Stable glaucoma patients were randomized between the GFU and the glaucoma specialist group. Costs per patient year were calculated from four perspectives: those of patients, the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH), Dutch healthcare system, and society. The outcome measures were: compliance to the protocol; patient satisfaction; stability according to the practitioner; mean difference in IOP; results of the examinations; and number of treatment changes., Results: Baseline characteristics (such as age, intraocular pressure and target pressure) were comparable between the GFU group (n = 410) and the glaucoma specialist group (n = 405).Despite a higher number of visits per year, mean hospital costs per patient year were lower in the GFU group (€139 vs. €161). Patients' time and travel costs were similar. Healthcare costs were significantly lower for the GFU group (€230 vs. €251), as were societal costs (€310 vs. €339) (p < 0.01). Bootstrap-, sensitivity- and scenario-analyses showed that the costs were robust when varying hospital policy and the duration of visits and tests., Conclusion: We conclude that this GFU is cost-effective and deserves to be considered for implementation in other hospitals.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore in a specific hospital care process the applicability in practice of the theories of quality costing and value chains., Design/methodology/approach: In a retrospective case study an in-depth evaluation of the use of a quality cost model (QCM) and the applicability of Porter's care delivery value chain (CDVC) was performed in a specific care process: glaucoma care over the period 2001 to 2006 in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital in The Netherlands., Findings: The case study shows a reduction of costs per product by increasing the number of outpatient visits and surgery combined with a higher patient satisfaction. Reduction of costs of non-compliance by using the QCM is small, due to the absence of (external) financial incentives for both the hospital and individual physicians. For CDVC to be supportive to an integrated quality and cost management the notion "patient value" needs far more specification as mutually agreed on by the stakeholders involved and related reimbursement needs to depend on realised outcomes., Research Limitations/implications: The case study just focused on one specific care process in one hospital. To determine effects in other areas of health care, it is important to study the use and applicability of the QCM and the CDVC in other care processes and settings., Originality/value: QCM and a CDVC can be useful tools for hospital management to manage the outcomes on both quality and costs, but impact is dependent on the incentives in the context of the existing organisational and reimbursement system and asks for an agreed on operationalisation among the various stakeholders of the notion of patient value.