Search

Objectives: Currently, there is no evidence of an effective treatment for patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV). Their main complaints are oscillopsia and imbalance. Opinions about the impact of BV on their quality of life are controversial, and their handicap is not always recognized, even among otoneurologists. The aim of this study was to objectively assess the health status of BV patients in order to evaluate the need for pursuing efforts toward the development of new treatments., Methods: The short-form health survey (SF-36), the dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), the short falls efficacy scale-international (short FES-I), and an oscillopsia severity questionnaire were submitted to 39 BV patients. The SF-36 scores were compared to the scores of a general Dutch population. The DHI scores were correlated to the oscillopsia severity scores. The short FES-I scores were compared to scores in an elderly population. Residual otolithic function was correlated to all scores, and hearing to SF-36 scores., Results: Compared to the general Dutch population, the BV patients scored significantly worse on the "physical functioning", "role physical", "general health", "vitality", and "social functioning" SF-36 variables (p < 0.05). The DHI scores were strongly correlated with the oscillopsia severity scores (r = 0.75; p < 0.000001). The short FES-I scores indicated a slight to moderate increase in the patients' fear of falling. No significant score differences were found between BV patients with residual otolithic function and patients with complete BV. There was no correlation between hearing status and SF-36 scores., Conclusions: The results correlate with our clinical impression that BV has a strong negative impact on physical and social functioning, leading to a quality-of-life deterioration. There is a clear need for a therapeutic solution. Efforts toward the development of a vestibular implant are justified.

This paper describes the development and implementation of the first national, public and obligatory set of hospital performance indicators in the Netherlands. Focusing on effectiveness and safety, the set was developed by the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their task: monitoring the quality of the care delivered by providers. In addition, the set would enhance the transparency of the hospital sector, and stimulate individual hospitals to improve their scores. Bridging some of the classic distinctions between 'internal' and 'external' indicators, the Inspectorate's vision was to rapidly produce a feasible set of indicators that would fulfill these aims, while maximally preventing 'side effects' such as misinterpretations, defensive or perverse reactions. Explicitly avoiding the trap of searching for exhaustive validity of the indicators, the inspectorate's motto was 'feasability first'. This paper describes how this simultaneously philosophical, political and pragmatic strategy played out successfully, and how the indicator set was ultimately embraced by all parties involved.