Search

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incidents and quality problems are a prime cause why health care leaders are calling to redesign health care delivery. One of the concepts used is lean thinking. Yet, lean often leads to resistance. Also, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting lean premises. In this paper, we present an overview of lean thinking and its application to health care. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Issue Research has often stressed the significance of reducing door movement during surgery for preventing surgical site infections. This study investigated the possible effect of a lean A3 intervention on the reduction of door movement during surgery in a university medical center in the Netherlands. Initial assessment A digital counter recorded door movement during 8009 surgical procedures during 8 months. The number of door movements per surgical procedure ranged from 0 to 555, with a mean of 24 door movements per hour across 26 specialisms. Choice of solution We aimed to reduce door movement in one operating room for orthopedic surgery by a lean A3 intervention. This intervention was executed by means of an A3 report that promotes structured problem solving based on a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. Implementation The steps of the A3 report was followed and completed one-by-one by a multidisciplinary team. The effect of the changes was monitored over the course of 12 months. Evaluation The use of a lean A3 intervention resulted in a sustainable decrease of door movements by 78%, from a mean of 24 to a mean of 4 door movements per hour during orthopedic surgery at one OR. Lessons learned This paper shows the relevance of and the possibility for a reduction of door movement during surgery by lean management methods in general and an A3 intervention in particular. This intervention stimulated dialogue and encouraged knowledge-sharing and collaboration between specialized healthcare professionals and this resulted in a thorough root-cause analysis that provided synergy in the countermeasures—with, according to respondents, a sustainable result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To discover lessons from 10 national health and social care quality programmes in the Netherlands. Design A mixed-methods comparison using a ‘quantitative summarization of evidence for systematic comparison’. Each research team assessed whether there was evidence from their evaluation to support or refute 17 hypotheses about successful implementation of quality programmes. The programme managers carried out a similar assessment. Their assessments were represented as scores which made it possible to carry out a cross-case analysis to assess factors affecting the success of large-scale quality programmes. Participants The researchers who evaluated each of the programmes and the leaders who organized each programme. Setting Health and social care service organizations and national organization, which led the quality improvement programmes. Intervention(s) This study did not make an intervention but compared experiences and evaluations of interventions carried out by national organization to health and social care service organizations to help these organizations to improve their services. Main Outcome Measure(s) The success of the national programmes, and the learning achieved by the programme organizations and care service delivery organizations. Results The method provided a way to summarize and compare complex information. Common factors which appeared to influence success in implementation included understanding of political processes, leader's influencing skills, as well as technical skills to manage projects and apply improvement and change methods. Conclusions Others could use a similar method to make a fast, broad level, but systematic comparison across reports of improvements or programmes. Descriptions, and then comparisons of the programmes, reveal common factors which appeared to influence success in implementation. There were groups of factors which appeared to be more important for the success of certain types of programmes. It is possible that these factors may also be important for the success of large-scale improvement programmes in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality Problem or Issue: Patient safety is an important topic within healthcare systems. A favourable safety culture might promote safety. We examined whether a nation-wide patient safety programme (PSP) improved patient safety culture.Initial Assessment: We initially measured patient safety culture among 3779 healthcare providers in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture.Choice Of Solution: A PSP based on two pillars: the implementation of a safety management system and the focus on 10 themes in which harm to patients appeared highly preventable. Elements of the safety management system were safety management, safety culture, risk assessments and continuous safety improvements.Implementation: Implementation was nation-wide.Evaluation: After implementation of the programme, we assessed patient safety culture among 6605 healthcare providers in 24 Dutch hospitals and compared the scores with the initial measurement. We hypothesized that after the programme (1) scores on safety culture dimensions improved, (2) safety culture became more homogeneous within and between hospitals and (3) relative influence of hospitals on safety culture increased. A three-level mixed model for continuous responses was fit for 11 safety culture dimensions. We calculated average individual means, between-department variances, between-hospital variances and total variances per dimension.Lessons Learned: In general, a more favourable safety culture was seen after the PSP. However, hospitals and departments did not become more homogeneous, except for 'frequency of event reporting'. The variety in responses amongst departments and hospitals increased for several dimensions, implying that not all of them improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of internal auditing in hospital care focussed on improving patient safety.Design, Setting and Participants: A before-and-after mixed-method evaluation study was carried out in eight departments of a university medical center in the Netherlands.Intervention(s): Internal auditing and feedback focussed on improving patient safety.Main Outcome Measure(s): The effect of internal auditing was assessed 15 months after the audit, using linear mixed models, on the patient, professional, team and departmental levels. The measurement methods were patient record review on adverse events (AEs), surveys regarding patient experiences, safety culture and team climate, analysis of administrative hospital data (standardized mortality rate, SMR) and safety walk rounds (SWRs) to observe frontline care processes on safety.Results: The AE rate decreased from 36.1% to 31.3% and the preventable AE rate from 5.5% to 3.6%; however, the differences before and after auditing were not statistically significant. The patient-reported experience measures regarding patient safety improved slightly over time (P < 0.001). The SMR, patient safety culture and team climate remained unchanged after the internal audit. The SWRs showed that medication safety and information security were improved (P < 0.05).Conclusions: Internal auditing was associated with improved patient experiences and observed safety on wards. No effects were found on adverse outcomes, safety culture and team climate 15 months after the internal audit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality Problem: Unplanned hospital readmissions frequently occur and have profound implications for patients. This study explores chronically ill patients' experiences and perceptions of being discharged to home and then acutely readmitted to the hospital to identify the potential impact on future care transition interventions.Initial Assessment and Implementation: Twenty-three semistructured interviews were conducted with chronically ill patients who had an unplanned 30-day hospital readmission at a university teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Choice Of Solution: A constructive grounded theory approach was used for data analysis.Evaluation: The core category identified was 'readiness for hospital discharge,' and the categories related to the core category are 'experiencing acute care settings' and 'outlook on the recovery period after hospital discharge.' Patients' readiness for hospital discharge was influenced by the organization of hospital care, patients' involvement in decision-making and preparation for discharge. The experienced difficulties during care transitions might have influenced patients' ability to cope with challenges of recovery and dependency on others.Lessons Learned: The results demonstrated the importance of assessing patients' readiness for hospital discharge. Health care professionals are recommended to recognize patients and guide them through transitions of care. In addition, employing specifically designated strategies that encourage patient-centered communication and shared decision-making can be vital in improving care transitions and reduce hospital readmissions. We suggest that health care professionals pay attention to the role and capacity of informal caregivers during care transitions and the recovery period after hospital discharge to prevent possible postdischarge problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To contribute to a better understanding of volume-outcome relationships in surgery by exploring Dutch surgeons' views on the underlying mechanism.Design: A qualitative study based on face-to-face semi structured interviews and an inductive content analysis approach.Setting: Interviews were conducted in eight hospitals in the Netherlands (2 university, 4 teaching and 2 general).Participants: Twenty surgeons (gastrointestinal, vascular and trauma).Main Outcome Measure(s): Dutch surgeons' views on volume-outcome relationships in surgery and the underlying mechanism.Results: The majority of surgeons believed volume is related to outcomes after surgery. Interviewees highlighted the importance of both focus and skills when describing the underlying mechanism. Focus was visible on three levels: hospital, surgeon and team. Focus on a hospital level referred to investing in specific infrastructure and dedicated personnel. Surgeons described both the benefits and downsides of surgeons' increased focus to a certain surgical subspeciality. And their experiences on the importance of working with fixed, procedure-specific teams. The positive influence of caseload on technical and nontechnical skills was acknowledged, as well as the benefits of combining skills by operating together. Although a basic skill set should be maintained, this does not necessarily require high volume.Conclusions: Focus and skills are important explanatory factors in volume-outcome relationships according to Dutch surgeons. This suggests that both high- and low-volume providers should enable specialized, fixed teams for complex surgeries and focus on maintenance of both their technical and nontechnical skills. By uncovering the underlying mechanism, imperfect quality indicators such as volume can be supplemented or replaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a method to define a multi-stakeholder perspective on health-service quality that enables the expression of differences in systematically identified stakeholders' perspectives, and to pilot the approach for cataract care.Design: Mixed-method study between 2014 and 2015.Setting: Cataract care in the Netherlands.Participants: Stakeholder representatives.Intervention(s): We first identified and classified stakeholders using stakeholder theory. Participants established a multi-stakeholder perspective on quality of cataract care using concept mapping, this yielded a cluster map based on multivariate statistical analyses. Consensus-based quality dimensions were subsequently defined in a plenary stakeholder session.Main Outcome Measure(s): Stakeholders and multi-stakeholder perspective on health-service quality.Results: Our analysis identified seven definitive stakeholders, as follows: the Dutch Ophthalmology Society, ophthalmologists, general practitioners, optometrists, health insurers, hospitals and private clinics. Patients, as dependent stakeholders, were considered to lack power by other stakeholders; hence, they were not classified as definitive stakeholders. Overall, 18 stakeholders representing ophthalmologists, general practitioners, optometrists, health insurers, hospitals, private clinics, patients, patient federations and the Dutch Healthcare Institute sorted 125 systematically collected indicators into the seven following clusters: patient centeredness and accessibility, interpersonal conduct and expectations, experienced outcome, clinical outcome, process and structure, medical technical acting and safety. Importance scores from stakeholders directly involved in the cataract service delivery process correlated strongly, as did scores from stakeholders not directly involved in this process.Conclusions: Using a case study on cataract care, the proposed methods enable different views among stakeholders concerning quality dimensions to be systematically revealed, and the stakeholders jointly agreed on these dimensions. The methods helped to unify different quality definitions and facilitated operationalisation of quality measurement in a way that was accepted by relevant stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study explores the processes of integration that are assumed to underlie integrated care delivery.Design: A quasi-experimental design with a control group was used; a new instrument was developed to measure integration from the professional perspective.Setting and Participants: Professionals from primary care practices and home-care organizations delivering care to the frail elderly in the Walcheren region of the Netherlands.Intervention: An integrated care intervention specifically targeting frail elderly patients was implemented.Main Outcome Measures: Structural, cultural, social and strategic integration and satisfaction with integration.Results: The intervention significantly improved structural, cultural and social integration, agreement on goals, interests, power and resources and satisfaction with integration.Conclusions: This study confirms that integrated care structures foster processes of integration among professionals.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05748494. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Many patients with schizophrenia are not treated in line with evidence-based guidelines. This study examines the large-scale implementation of the National Multidisciplinary Guideline for schizophrenia in the Netherlands. Design Observational, prospective study, with repeated measurement. Setting Thirty mental healthcare teams in different regions of the Netherlands. Participants Three hundred and fifty-nine clinicians with different professional backgrounds and 1489 patients suffering from schizophrenia. Intervention(s) Six evidence-based interventions for schizophrenia were implemented, in the context of a quality improvement collaborative: assertive community treatment (ACT) or its adapted version functional assertive community treatment (FACT), cognitive behavioural therapy, psycho-education, family interventions, individual placement support and pharmacotherapy. Main Outcome Measure(s) Professional performance, social functioning and relapse rates. Results Improved professional performance, in line with guidelines. Availability of (F)ACT improved from 23 to 60%. Individual Placement Support improved from 20 to 53%. Complete care plans were composed for 38% of the patients and routine outcome monitoring was introduced in most teams. Social functioning improved slightly (HoNOS mean: from 6.2 to 5.6). Relapse rates did not improve during the course of the study. Conclusions An intensive implementation programme can result in an improved delivery of evidence-based care, increased continuity of care and slightly improved outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia. More rigorous research designs have to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and setting The Dutch long-term care organizations, providing somatic care, psycho-geriatric care and home care, have to measure the quality of care through client-related and professional indicators since 2007. At the same time, competition was introduced with regional stimuli from healthcare insurers. The first aim of this study is to determine the trends of the national performance on client-related and professional quality indicators for the period 2007–09 in long-term care organizations in the Netherlands. The second aim is to determine the influence of the region on the quality performance in 2009. Design and participants We performed trend analyses on the indicators of clients of 2115 long-term care organizations. We used multivariate analyses to determine the difference in national performance between 2007 and 2009 and to calculate the influence of the region on the performance of 2009. Intervention None. Main Outcome Measures Client-related and professional indicators. Results The national performance on client-related indicators for somatic care and home care increased and for psycho-geriatric care the quality performance became worse. The professional indicators for intramural care improved between 2007 and 2009. Region influences the performance. In general, organizations in the west of the Netherlands performed worse than other regions (with exception of home care). Conclusions The study suggests that working with quality indicators in long-term care organizations for older people may lead to a better performance on several indicators. The influence of the region on the quality is significant, which could be caused by Dutch healthcare insurers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective It is believed that in order to reduce the number of adverse events, hospitals have to stimulate a more open culture and reflective attitude towards errors and patient safety. The objective is to examine similarities and differences in hospital patient safety culture in three countries: the Netherlands, the USA and Taiwan. Design This is a cross-sectional survey study across three countries. A questionnaire, the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Hospital SOPS), was disseminated nationwide in the Netherlands, the USA and Taiwan. Setting The study was conducted in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, 622 in the USA and 74 in Taiwan. Participants A total of 3779 professionals from the participating hospitals in the Netherlands, 196 462 from the USA and 10 146 from Taiwan participated in the study. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome measures of the study were 12 dimensions of patient safety culture, e.g. Teamwork, Organizational learning, Communication openness. Results Most hospitals in all three countries have high scores on teamwork within units. The area with a high potential for improvement in all three countries is Handoffs and transitions. Differences between countries exist on the following dimensions: Non-punitive response to error, Feedback and communication about error, Communication openness, Management support for patient safety and Organizational learning—continuous improvement. On the whole, US respondents were more positive about the safety culture in their hospitals than Dutch and Taiwanese respondents. Nevertheless, there are even larger differences between hospitals within a country. Conclusions Comparison of patient safety culture data has shown similarities and differences within and between countries. All three countries can improve areas of their patient safety culture. Countries can identify and share best practices and learn from each other. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction Many approaches to measuring quality in healthcare exist, generally employing indicators or metrics. While there are important differences, most of these approaches share three key areas of measurement: safety, effectiveness and patient experience. The European Partnership for Supervisory Organisations in Health Services and Social Care (EPSO) exists as a working group and discussion forum for European regulators. This group undertook to identify a common framework within which European approaches to indicators could be compared. Approach A framework was developed to classify indicators, using four sets of criteria: conceptualization of quality, Donabedian definition (structure, process, outcome), data type (derivable, collectable from routine sources, special collections, samples) and data use (judgement (singular or part of framework) benchmarking, risk assessment). Indicators from English and Dutch hospital measurement programmes were put into the framework, showing areas of agreement and levels of comparability. In the first instance, results are only illustrative. Conclusions and implications The EPSO has been a powerful driver for undertaking cross-European research, and this project is the first of many to take advantage of the access to international expertize. It has shown that through development of a framework that deconstructs national indicators, commonalities can be identified. Future work will attempt to incorporate other nations' indicators, and attempt cross-national comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]