暂无摘要。

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: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient\'s perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned.
METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study\'s context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input.
CONCLUSIONS: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients.
UNASSIGNED: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

Value-based healthcare payment models are an alternative insurance payment system that compensates healthcare providers based on their patients\' outcomes rather than the individual services healthcare workers provide. This shift from the current fee-for-service model that predominates our medical system has received renewed popularity and attention within organized medicine such as the American Medical Association. Advocates believe that this new payment model will address many of the unsolved issues in healthcare such as medical waste and unsustainable healthcare costs. In practice, however, this model is plagued with a myriad of unresolved issues of its own. In this commentary, we outline these issues and suggest that the intentions of those advocating for value-based payment models are either misguided or disingenuous. We then offer solutions that preserve our current fee-for-service model while making necessary changes that will benefit both physicians and patients nationwide.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions affect one in seven young people and research suggests that current mental health services are not meeting the needs of most children and youth. Learning health systems are an approach to enhancing services through rapid, routinized cycles of continuous learning and improvement. Patient-reported outcome measures provide a key data source for learning health systems. They have also been shown to improve outcomes for patients when integrated into routine clinical care. However, implementing these measures into health systems is a challenging process. This paper describes a protocol for a formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported measures in a newly operational child and adolescent mental health centre in Calgary, Canada. The purpose is to optimize the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures. Our specific objectives are to assess the implementation progress, identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, and explore patient, caregivers and clinician experiences of using these measures in routine clinical care.
METHODS: This study is a mixed-methods, formative evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants include patients and caregivers who have used the centre\'s services, as well as leadership, clinical and support staff at the centre. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures, as well as individuals\' experiences with using these measures within clinical care. The data generated by the patient-reported measures over the first five months of the centre\'s operation will be analyzed to understand implementation progress, as well as validity of the chosen measures for the centres\' population.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this evaluation will help to identify and address the factors that are affecting the successful implementation of patient-reported measures at the centre. They will inform the co-design of strategies to improve implementation with key stakeholders, which include patients, clinical staff, and leadership at the centre. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services and our findings can be used to enhance future implementation efforts in similar settings.

BACKGROUND: The value equation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) as a single figure remains ambiguous, closer to a theoretical framework than a useful tool for decision making. The challenge lies in the way patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) might be combined to produce a single value of the numerator. This paper aims to estimate the weights of PCOs to provide a single figure in the numerator, which ultimately will allow a VBHC figure to be reached.
METHODS: A cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 690) with a 6-month follow-up recruited in 2019-20 across six European hospitals was used. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical-related outcomes (CROs), and clinical and socio-demographic variables were collected. The numerator was defined as a composite indicator of the PCOs (CI-PCO), and regression analysis was applied to estimate their weights and consequently arrive at a single figure.
RESULTS: Pain showed as the highest weight followed by physical functioning, emotional functioning, and ability to work, and then by a symptom, either arm or breast. PCOs weights were robust to sensitivity analysis. The CI-PCO value was found to be more informative than the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) value.
CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to combine the PCOs proposed by ICHOM to provide a single figure in the numerator of the value equation. This figure shows a step forward in VBHC to reach a holistic benchmarking across healthcare centres and a value-based payment. This research might also be applied in other medical conditions as a methodological pathway.

BACKGROUND: One of the aims of value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to deliver more patient-centred care. However, little is known about the effect of VBHC interventions on patient experiences. We aim to explore how patients experience VBHC as implemented in an HIV outpatient clinic in an academic hospital in the Netherlands.
METHODS: The HIV outpatient clinic of the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, an academic tertiary hospital, implemented a VBHC intervention consisting of 1) implementation of a generic quality of life questionnaire, administered before each visit, 2) a change in consultation schedule; from twice a year face-to-face to one face-to-face double consultation and one remote consultation per year, and 3) a change in consultation structure; from a single face-to-face consultation with the infectious diseases (ID) specialist to a double consultation in which the patient visits both the nurse and the ID specialist. Semi-structured interviews were held with Dutch or English-speaking adult patients, that had been a patient within Erasmus MC for more than 5 years, on their experiences with the implemented changes.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were interviewed. Patients had no objections towards completing the questionnaires especially if it could provide the professionals with additional information. Patients were primarily positive about the change in consultation schedule. For the yearly remote consultation they preferred a telephone-consultation above a video-consultation. The change in consultation structure ensured that more topics, including psychosocial and medical aspects could be discussed. Some patients did not see the added value of talking to two professionals on the same day or completing the quality of life questionnaire before their consultation.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients are generally positive towards the VBHC interventions implemented at the HIV outpatient clinic. Our findings may inform further optimization of VBHC interventions and improve patient-centred care in outpatient HIV clinics.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are becoming more widely implemented across health care for important reasons. However, with thousands of PROMs available and the science of psychometrics becoming more widely applied in health measurement, choosing the right ones to implement can be puzzling. This article provides a framework of the different types of PROMs by organizing them into 4 categories based upon \"what\" is being measured and \"from whom\" the questions are asked: (1) condition-specific and domain-specific, (2) condition-specific and global, (3) universal and global, and (4) universal and domain-specific. We delve deeper into each category with clinical examples. This framework can empower health care leaders and policymakers to make more informed decisions when selecting the best PROMs to implement, ensuring PROMs deliver on their potential to promote high quality, patient-centered care.

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.

暂无摘要。