BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) model of care provides insights into patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs of care delivery that help clinicians counsel patients. This study compares the allocation and value of curative oncological treatment in frail and fit older patients with esophageal cancer in a dedicated VBHC pathway.
METHODS: Data was collected from patients with primary esophageal cancer without distant metastases, aged 70 years or older, and treated at a Dutch tertiary care hospital between 2015 and 2019. Geriatric assessment (GA) was performed. Outcomes included treatment discontinuation, mortality, quality of life (QoL), and physical functioning over a one-year period. Direct hospital costs were estimated using activity-based costing.
RESULTS: In this study, 89 patients were included with mean age 75 years. Of 56 patients completing GA, 19 were classified as frail and 37 as fit. For frail patients, the treatment plan was chemoradiotherapy and surgery (CRT&S) in 68% (13/19) and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) in 32% (6/19); for fit patients, CRT&S in 84% (31/37) and dCRT in 16% (6/37). Frail patients discontinued chemotherapy more often than fit patients (26% (5/19) vs 11% (4/37), p = 0.03) and reported lower QoL after six months (mean 0.58 [standard deviation (SD) 0.35] vs 0.88 [0.25], p < 0.05). After one year, 11% of frail and 30% of fit patients reported no decline in physical functioning and QoL and survived. Frail and fit patients had comparable mean direct hospital costs (€24 K [SD €13 K] vs €23 K [SD €8 K], p = 0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: The value of curative oncological treatment was lower for frail than for fit patients because of slightly worse outcomes and comparable costs. The utility of the VBHC model of care depends on the availability of sufficient data. Real-world evidence in VBHC can be used to inform treatment decisions and optimization in future patients by sharing results and monitoring performance over time.
BACKGROUND: The study was retrospectively registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), trial number NL8107 (date of registration: 22-10-2019).

BACKGROUND: While healthcare organizations in several countries are embracing Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), there are limited insights into how to achieve this paradigm shift. This study examines the decade-long (2012-2023) change towards VBHC in a pioneering Dutch university hospital.
METHODS: Through retrospective, complexity-informed process research, we study how a Dutch university hospital\'s strategy to implement VBHC evolved, how implementation outcomes unfolded, and the underlying logic behind these developments. Data include the hospital\'s internal documents (n = 10,536), implementation outcome indicators (n = 4), a survey among clinicians (n = 47), and interviews with individuals contributing to VBHC at the hospital level (n = 20).
RESULTS: The change towards VBHC is characterized by three sequential strategies. Initially, the focus was on deep change through local, tailored implementation of multiple VBHC elements. The strategy then transitioned to a hospital-wide program aimed at evolutionary change on a large scale, emphasizing the integration of VBHC into mainstream IT and policies. Recognizing the advantages and limitations of both strategies, the hospital currently adopts a \"hybrid\" strategy. This strategy delicately combines deep and broad change efforts. The strategy evolved based on accumulated insights, contextual developments and shifts in decision-makers. The complexity of change was downplayed in plans and stakeholder communication. By the end of 2023, 68 (sub)departments engaged in VBHC, enabled to discuss patients\' responses to Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) during outpatient care. However, clinicians\' use of PROMs data showed limitations. While pioneers delved deeper into VBHC, laggards have yet to initiate it.
CONCLUSIONS: VBHC does not lend itself to linear planning and is not easily scalable. While there appears to be no golden standard for implementation, blending local and larger-scale actions appears advantageous. Local, deep yet harmonized and system-integrated changes culminate in large scale transformation. Embracing complexity and focusing on the ultimate aims of (re)institutionalization and (re)professionalization are crucial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are associated with a high disease burden. Under- and overprovision of care as well as quality variation between health care providers persists, while current quality indicators rarely capture the patients\' perspective. Capturing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as well as patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is becoming more and more important to identify gaps in care provision, prioritize services most valuable to patients, and aid patients\' self-management.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to measure the potential benefits and effectiveness of using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and electronic patient-reported experience measures in a structured and population-based manner to enhance health care for chronic disease patients in Germany.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of PROM usage in patients with chronic diseases. We evaluate whether (1) digitally collected PROMs and PREMs can be used for health system performance assessment by generating a representative response of chronically diseased individuals with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and coronary artery disease across Germany, and (2) based on the PROMs and PREMs, low-value care can be identified. As patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rarely presented back to patients, (3) this study also examines patients\' reactions to their PROM scores in the form of digital PRO feedback. For these purposes, randomly selected patients from a nationwide German insurer are digitally surveyed with generic and disease-specific PROMs and PREMs, as well as additional questions on their health-related behavior, 4 times over 1 year. Individual PRO feedback is presented back to patients longitudinally and compared to a peer group after each survey period. Patient-reported data is linked with health insurance data. Response rates, changes in health and experience outcomes over time, self-reported changes in health behavior, and health care system usage will be analyzed.
RESULTS: The PROMchronic study explores the usage of PROMs in patients with chronic diseases. Data collection began in October 2023, after the initial invitation letter. All the 200,000 potential patients have been invited to participate in the study. Data have not yet been analyzed. Publication of the interim results is planned for the autumn of 2024, and the results are planned to be published in 2025.
CONCLUSIONS: We aim to fill the research gap on the population-based usage of PROMs and PREMs in patients with chronic diseases and add to the current understanding of PROM data-sharing with patients. The study\'s results can thereby inform whether a health care system-wide approach to collecting PROMs and PREMs can be used to identify low-value care, assess quality variation within and across chronic conditions, and determine whether PRO feedback is helpful and associated with any changes in patients\' health behaviors.
BACKGROUND: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00031656; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00031656.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/56487.

BACKGROUND: Wearables hold potential to improve chronic disease self-management in conditions like cystic fibrosis (CF) through remote monitoring, early detection of illness and motivation. Little is known about the acceptability and sustainability of integrating wearables into routine care from the perspectives of people with CF (pwCF) and their treating clinicians.
METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with adult pwCF and focus groups comprising members of a CF multidisciplinary team (MDT) were conducted at a specialist CF centre in Australia. A phenomenological orientation underpinned the study. Inductive thematic analysis was performed using the Framework method. The study adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.
RESULTS: Nine pwCF and eight members of a CF MDT, representing six clinical disciplines, participated in the study. Eight themes were inductively generated from the data, of which four were identified from each group. PwCF valued wearables for providing real-time data to motivate healthy behaviours and support shared goal-setting with healthcare providers. Wearables did not influence adherence to CF-specific self-management practices and had some hardware limitations. Members of the CF MDT recognised potential benefits of remote monitoring and shared goal-setting, but advised caution regarding data accuracy, generating patient anxiety in certain personality traits, and lack of evidence supporting use in CF self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: Perspectives on integrating wearables into CF care were cautiously optimistic, with emerging risks related to patient anxiety and lack of evidence moderating acceptance.

UNASSIGNED: Demand for stroke services is increasing. To save time and costs, stroke care could be reorganised using a transdisciplinary assessment model embracing overlapping allied health professional skills. The study compares transdisciplinary assessment to discipline-specific allied health assessment on an acute stroke unit, by evaluating assessment time, quality of care, and cost implications.
UNASSIGNED: The pre-/post- clinical study used non-randomised groups and 3-month follow-up after hospital admission. Patients with confirmed/suspected stroke received usual discipline-specific allied health assessment (pre-implementation phase) or the novel transdisciplinary assessment (post-implementation phase). Staff/student assessment times (primary outcome) and medical record data (secondary outcomes) were collected. Time differences were estimated using multivariable linear regression controlling for confounding factors. Cost minimisation and sensitivity analyses estimated change in hospital resource use.
UNASSIGNED: When the transdisciplinary assessment was used (N = 116), compared to usual assessment (N = 63), the average time saving was 37.6 min (95% CI -47.5, -27.7; p < 0.001) for staff and 62.2 min (95% CI -74.1, -50.3; p < 0.001) for students. The median number of allied health occasions of service reduced from 8 (interquartile range 4-23) to 5 (interquartile range 3-10; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant or clinically important changes in patient safety, outcomes or stroke guideline adherence. Improved efficiency was associated with an estimated cost saving of $379.45 per patient (probabilistic 95% CI -487.15, -271.48).
UNASSIGNED: Transdisciplinary stroke assessment has potential for reorganising allied health services to save assessment time and reduce healthcare costs. The transdisciplinary stroke assessment could be considered for implementation in other stroke services.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to develop a pragmatic framework, based on value-based healthcare principles, to monitor health outcomes per unit costs on an institutional level. Subsequently, we investigated the association between health outcomes and healthcare utilisation costs.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: A teaching hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
METHODS: The study was performed in two use cases. The bariatric population contained 856 patients of which 639 were diagnosed with morbid obesity body mass index (BMI) <45 and 217 were diagnosed with morbid obesity BMI ≥45. The breast cancer population contained 663 patients of which 455 received a lumpectomy and 208 a mastectomy.
METHODS: The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined asQCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros)where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path.
RESULTS: The breast cancer and bariatric population had the highest resulting outcome values in 2020 Q4, 0.93 and 0.73, respectively. The average total costs of the bariatric population remained stable (avg, €8833.55, min €8494.32, max €9164.26). The breast cancer population showed higher variance in costs (avg, €12 735.31 min €12 188.83, max €13 695.58). QCI values of both populations showed similar variance (0.3 and 0.8). Failing health outcome indicators was significantly related to higher hospital-based costs of care in both populations (p <0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The QCI framework is effective for monitoring changes in average total costs and relevant health outcomes on an institutional level. Health outcomes are associated with hospital-based costs of care.

OBJECTIVE: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) involves the use of standardised outcome measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This study aimed to assess to what extent discussion of PROMs is associated with patient- and person-centredness.
METHODS: This study used a separate sample pre-/post-test design and multiple methods (observations, questionnaires, and interviews) in a VBHC care pathway for patients with a vestibular schwannoma, to assess to what extent the implementation of PROMs is associated with a difference in patient- and person-centredness.
RESULTS: A total of 139 patients with a vestibular schwannoma and their four treating physicians were included in the study. No significant differences were found in observed patient-centredness (Mpre=6.71 ± 2.42 vs. Mpost=6.93 ± 2.01; P = 0.60) or patient-reported patient-centredness (Mpre=1.73 vs. Mpost=1.68; P = 0.63) and person-centredness after PROM implementation (Mpre=11.81 vs. Mpost=13.42; P = 0.34). We observed more discussion of patient-reported outcomes. However, a majority of patients did not expect PRO discussion in consultations.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standardised PROMs in a VBHC care pathway was associated with more discussion on patient-reported outcomes in clinical consultations. Overall, the implementation of PROMs was not observed or perceived as leading to more patient-centred consultations.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should assess whether the discussion of PROMs add value collaboratively with patients.

OBJECTIVE: Value-based health care (VBHC) argues that health-care needs to re-focus to maximise value creation, defining value as the quota when dividing the outcomes important for the patient, by the cost for health care to deliver such outcomes. This study aims to explore the perception of value among different stakeholders involved in the process of implementing VBHC at a Swedish hospital to support leaders to be more efficient and effective when developing health care.
METHODS: Participants comprised 19 clinicians and non-clinicians involved in the implementation of VBHC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and content analysis was performed.
RESULTS: The clinicians described value as a dynamic concept, dependent on the patient and the clinical setting, stating that improving outcomes was more important than containing costs. The value for non-clinicians appeared more driven by the interplay between the outcome and the cost. Non-clinicians related VBHC to a strategic framework for governance or for monitoring different continuous improvement processes, while clinicians appreciated VBHC, as they perceived its introduction as an opportunity to focus more on outcomes for patients and less on cost containment.
CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in how clinicians and non-clinicians perceive the key concept of value when implementing VBHC. Clinicians focus on increasing treatment efficacy and improving medical outcomes but have a limited focus on cost and what patients consider most valuable. If the concept of value is defined primarily by clinicians\' own assumptions, there is a clear risk that the foundational premise of VBHC, to understand what outcomes patients value in their specific situation in relation to the cost to produce such outcome, will fail. Health-care leaders need to ensure that patients and the non-clinicians\' perception of value, is integrated with the clinical perception, if VBHC is to deliver on its promise.

UNASSIGNED: Timely and comprehensive collection of a patient\'s medication history in the emergency department (ED) is crucial for optimizing health care delivery. The implementation of a medication history sharing program, titled \"Patient\'s In-home Medications at a Glance,\" in a tertiary teaching hospital aimed to efficiently collect and display nationwide medication histories for patients\' initial hospital visits.
UNASSIGNED: As an evaluation was necessary to provide a balanced picture of the program, we aimed to evaluate both care process outcomes and humanistic outcomes encompassing end-user experience of physicians and pharmacists.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a cohort study and a cross-sectional study to evaluate both outcomes. To evaluate the care process, we measured the time from the first ED assessment to urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) initiation from electronic health records. To assess end-user experience, we developed a 22-item questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale, including 5 domains: information quality, system quality, service quality, user satisfaction, and intention to reuse. This questionnaire was validated and distributed to physicians and pharmacists. The Mann-Whiteny U test was used to analyze the PCI initiation time, and structural equation modeling was used to assess factors affecting end-user experience.
UNASSIGNED: The time from the first ED assessment to urgent PCI initiation at the ED was significantly decreased using the patient medication history program (mean rank 42.14 min vs 28.72 min; Mann-Whitney U=346; P=.03). A total of 112 physicians and pharmacists participated in the survey. Among the 5 domains, \"intention to reuse\" received the highest score (mean 4.77, SD 0.37), followed by \"user satisfaction\" (mean 4.56, SD 0.49), while \"service quality\" received the lowest score (mean 3.87, SD 0.79). \"User satisfaction\" was significantly associated with \"information quality\" and \"intention to reuse.\"
UNASSIGNED: Timely and complete retrieval using a medication history-sharing program led to an improved care process by expediting critical decision-making in the ED, thereby contributing to value-based health care delivery in a real-world setting. The experiences of end users, including physicians and pharmacists, indicated satisfaction with the program regarding information quality and their intention to reuse.

BACKGROUND: Responsible digital care refers to any intentional systematic effort designed to increase the likelihood of a digital care technology developed through ethical decision-making, being socially responsible and aligned with the values and well-being of those impacted by it.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to present examples of action opportunities for (1) designing \"technology\"; (2) shaping the \"context\" of use; and (3) adjusting the behavior of \"users\" to guide responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities.
METHODS: Three cases were considered: (1) design of a web application to support the preparation of meals for groups of people with intellectual disabilities, (2) implementation of an app to help people with intellectual disabilities regulate their stress independently, and (3) implementation of a social robot to stimulate interaction and physical activity among people with intellectual disabilities. Overall, 26 stakeholders participated in 3 multistakeholder workshops (case 1: 10/26, 38%; case 2: 10/26, 38%; case 3: 6/26, 23%) based on the \"guidance ethics approach.\" We identified stakeholders\' values based on bottom-up exploration of experienced and expected effects of using the technology, and we formulated action opportunities for these values in the specific context of use. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: Overall, 232 effects, 33 values, and 156 action opportunities were collected. General and case-specific themes were identified. Important stakeholder values included quality of care, autonomy, efficiency, health, enjoyment, reliability, and privacy. Both positive and negative effects could underlie stakeholders\' values and influence the development of action opportunities. Action opportunities comprised the following: (1) technology: development of the technology (eg, user experience and customization), technology input (eg, recipes for meals, intervention options for reducing stress, and activities), and technology output (eg, storage and use of data); (2) context: guidelines, training and support, policy or agreements, and adjusting the physical environment in which the technology is used; and (3) users: integrating the technology into daily care practice, by diminishing (eg, \"letting go\" to increase the autonomy of people with intellectual disabilities), retaining (eg, face-to-face contact), and adding (eg, evaluation moments) certain behaviors of care professionals.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide insight into responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities by means of bottom-up exploration of action opportunities to take account of stakeholders\' values in designing technology, shaping the context of use, and adjusting the behavior of users. Although part of the findings may be generalized, case-specific insights and a complementary top-down approach (eg, predefined ethical frameworks) are essential. The findings represent a part of an ethical discourse that requires follow-up to meet the dynamism of stakeholders\' values and further develop and implement action opportunities to achieve socially desirable, ethically acceptable, and sustainable digital care that improves the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.