OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and summarise how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is implemented in the field of ophthalmology.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching empirical and non-empirical articles from from electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest and Scopus) and other methods starting January 2006 (the year Porter and Teisberg introduced VBHC) up to 31 December 2023.
RESULTS: 1.081 records were screened, and 12 articles (8 empirical studies and 4 non-empirical articles) were used for data extraction. Most articles were published in the UK. Most articles described the implementation of VBHC agenda by measuring outcomes and costs. All the included empirical studies reported implementation effect; otherwise, non-empirical articles were only described proposed implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of VBHC in ophthalmology has shown a positive impact on enhancing patient value and reducing healthcare costs. Nevertheless, the study highlighted that no provider or healthcare system has fully embraced and implemented VBHC, comprehensively addressing the entire value agenda.

Healthcare systems are transforming from the traditional volume-based model of healthcare to a value-based model of healthcare. Value generation in healthcare is about emphasising the health outcomes achieved by patients and organisations while maintaining an optimal relationship with costs. This scoping review aimed to identify the key elements and outcomes of implementing value-based healthcare (VBHC). The review process included studies published from 2013 to 2023 in four different databases (SpringerLink, PubMed, ProQuest and Scopus). Of the 2801 articles retrieved from the searches, 12 met the study\'s inclusion criteria. A total of 11 studies referred to value as the relationship between the outcomes achieved by patients and the costs of achieving those outcomes. Most of the studies highlighted the presence of leadership, the organisation of care into integrated care units, the identification and standardisation of outcome measures that generate value for the patient, and the inclusion of the patient perspective as the most prominent key elements for optimal VBHC implementation. Furthermore, some benefits were identified from VBHC implementation, which could shed light for future implementation actions. Therefore, the VBHC model is a promising approach that may contribute to an improvement in the efficiency and sustainability of healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.
METHODS: Arksey and O\'Malley\'s overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.
RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Value-based healthcare (VBHC), which can be viewed as a strategy to organize and improve healthcare services, has far-reaching organizational and managerial consequences. It is common managerial practice to support the execution of a strategy by monitoring the ensuing activities. Such monitoring provides feedback and guidance on the execution of these activities to the management of an organization and helps to realize organizational strategies. Monitoring of activities is commonly done by performance management systems. Given the rising attention in the literature and in practice for VBHC, we ask to what extent VBHC is supported by performance management systems in practice, and how we can explain what we find to support further successful implementation of VBHC.
In our scoping review of financial and performance management at the organization or unit-level of healthcare organizations that apply value-based approaches, we identified 1267 unique papers in Embase, Medline, OVID, and Web of Science. After the (double-blinded) title and abstract screening, 398 full-text articles were assessed for further analysis.
Our review reveals only eleven original papers discussing specifically the integration of VBHC and performance management systems. Almost all the featured applications in these papers focus on a specific project or medical specialty. Only one paper exemplifies how VBHC has been integrated with the performance management systems of a medical institution, and no paper provides a clear link with strategy execution. We ask why this is the case and propose several explanations by studying the extant performance management literature. We see these explanations as issues for further reflection for VBHC practitioners and researchers.
We conclude that one of the reasons for the absence of papers integrating VBHC and performance management systems is formed by the tensions that exist between striving for \"the best care\" or even for providing \"all care that is viably possible\" and pursuing greater (financial) efficiency. Implementing VBHC as an important organizational strategy and explicating this strategy in the performance management systems requires that these tensions need to be brought into the fore. When this is not done, we believe that VBHC adoptions that are fully integrated with performance management systems will remain limited in practice.

As health care systems globally shift toward optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full cycle of care, there has been increasing focus on using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to gauge success. Patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that allow patients to share their health status across several domains (eg, pain or physical function). This trend has been particularly notable in hand surgery, with PROM use investigated for many common hand conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome, Dupuytren contracture, trigger finger, osteoarthritis, and wrist ganglion. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the use of PROM instruments, including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, for the evaluation and treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The considerable progress in establishing PROMs for use in carpal tunnel syndrome is reviewed, and future improvements are proposed to standardize PROM use and bring PROMs into day-to-day clinical practice for individualized patient treatment decision-making and counseling.

Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.
We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.
A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.
We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.
We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.
Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.
We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.
Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

In recent years, Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) has been gaining traction, particularly in hospitals. A core VBHC element is patient value, i.e., what matters most to the patient and at what cost can this be delivered. This interpretation of value implies patient engagement in patient-doctor communication. Although patient engagement in direct care in the VBHC setting is well described, patient engagement at the organizational level of improving care has hardly been studied. This systematic review maps current knowledge regarding the intensity and impact of patient engagement in VBHC initiatives. We focus on the organizational level of a continuous patient engagement model.
We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using five electronic databases. The search strategy yielded 1,546 records, of which 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. Search terms were VBHC and patient engagement, or similar keywords, and we included only empirical studies in hospitals or transmural settings at the organizational level.
We found that consultation, using either questionnaires or interviews by researchers, is the most common method to involve patients in VBHC. Higher levels of patient engagement, such as advisory roles, co-design, or collaborative teams are rare. We found no examples of the highest level of patient engagement such as patients co-leading care improvement committees.
This study included 21 articles, the majority of which were observational, resulting in a limited quality of evidence. Our review shows that patient engagement at the organizational level in VBHC initiatives still relies on low engagement tools such as questionnaires and interviews. Higher-level engagement tools such as advisory roles and collaborative teams are rarely used. Higher-level engagement offers opportunities to improve healthcare and care pathways through co-design with the people being served. We urge VBHC initiatives to embrace all levels of patient engagement to ensure that patient values find their way to the heart of these initiatives.

OBJECTIVE: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) puts patient outcomes at the center of the healthcare process while optimizing the use of hospital resources across multiple stakeholders. This scoping review was conducted to summarize how VBHC had been represented in theory and in practice, how it had been applied to assess hospital performance, and how well it had been ultimately implemented.
METHODS: For this review, we followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol and searched five major online databases for articles published between January 2006 and July 2022. We included original articles that used the concept of VBHC to conduct performance assessments of healthcare organizations. We extracted and analyzed key concepts and information on the dimensions of VBHC, specific strategies and methods for using VBHC in performance assessment, and the effectiveness of the assessment.
RESULTS: We identified 48 eligible studies from 7866 articles. Nineteen nonempirical studies focused on the development of a VBHC performance assessment indicator system, and 29 empirical studies reported on the ways and points of introducing VBHC into performance assessment and its effectiveness. Ultimately, we summarized the key dimensions, processes, and effects of performance assessment after introducing VBHC.
CONCLUSIONS: Current healthcare performance assessment has begun to focus on implementing VBHC as an integrated strategy, and future work should further clarify the reliability of metrics and their association with evaluation outcomes and consider the effective integration of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

Interpersonal continuity has been shown to play an essential role in primary care\'s salutary effects. Amid 2 decades of rapid evolution in the health care payment model, we sought to summarize the range of peer-reviewed literature relating continuity to health care costs and use, information critical to assessing the need for continuity measurement in value-based payment design.
After comprehensively reviewing prior continuity literature, we used a combination of established medical subject headings (MeSH) and key words to search PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published between 2002 and 2022 on \"continuity of care\" and \"continuity of patient care,\" and payor-relevant outcomes, including cost of care, health care costs, cost of health care, total cost of care, utilization, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, and hospitalizations for these conditions. We limited our search to primary care key words, MeSH terms, and other controlled vocabulary, including primary care, primary health care, family medicine, family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine.
Our search yielded 83 articles describing studies that were published between 2002 and 2022. Of these, 18 studies having a total of 18 unique outcomes examined the association between continuity and health care costs, and 79 studies having a total of 142 unique outcomes assessed the association between continuity and health care use. Interpersonal continuity was associated with significantly lower costs or more favorable use for 109 of the 160 outcomes.
Interpersonal continuity today remains significantly associated with lower health care costs and more appropriate use. Further research is needed to disaggregate these associations at the clinician, team, practice, and system levels, but continuity assessment is clearly important to designing value-based payment for primary care.

Evidence on the potential for value-based payment models to improve quality of care and ensure more efficient outcomes is limited and mixed. We aim to identify the factors that enhance or inhibit the design, implementation, and application of these models through a systematic literature review. We used the PRISMA guidelines. The facilitating and inhibiting factors were divided into subcategories according to a theoretical framework. We included 143 publications, each reporting multiple factors. Facilitators on objectives and strategies, such as realistic/achievable targets, are reported in 56 studies. Barriers regarding dedicated time and resources (e.g., an excessive amount of time for improvements to manifest) are reported in 25 studies. Consensus within the network regarding objectives and strategies, trust, and good coordination is essential. Health care staff needs to be kept motivated, well-informed, and actively involved. In addition, stakeholders should manage expectations regarding when results are expected to be achieved.