Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is a conceptual framework to improve the value of healthcare by health, care-process and economic outcomes. Benchmarking should provide useful information to identify best practices and therefore a good instrument to improve quality across healthcare organizations. This paper aims to provide a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of an international VBHC benchmarking in breast cancer, with the ultimate aim of being used to share best practices with a data-driven approach among healthcare organizations from different health systems. Methods In the VOICE community—a European healthcare centre cluster intending to address VBHC from theory to practice—information on patient-reported, clinical-related, care-process-related and economic-related outcomes were collected. Patient archetypes were identified using clustering techniques and an indicator set following a modified Delphi was defined. Benchmarking was performed using regression models controlling for patient archetypes and socio-demographic characteristics. Results Six hundred and ninety patients from six healthcare centres were included. A set of 50 health, care-process and economic indicators was distilled for benchmarking. Statistically significant differences across sites have been found in most health outcomes, half of the care-process indicators, and all economic indicators, allowing for identifying the best and worst performers. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international experience providing evidence to be used with VBHC benchmarking intention. Differences in indicators across healthcare centres should be used to identify best practices and improve healthcare quality following further research. Applied methods might help to move forward with VBHC benchmarking in other medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although C-section is a highly effective procedure, literature abounds with evidence of overuse and particularly misuse, in lower-value indications such as low-risk deliveries. This study aims to quantify utilization of C-section in low-risk cases, mapping out areas showing excess-usage in each country and to estimate excess-expenditure as a proxy of the opportunity cost borne by healthcare systems. Methods: Observational, ecologic study on deliveries in 913 sub-national administrative areas of five European countries (Denmark, England, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) from 2002 to 2009. The study includes a cross-section analysis with 2009 data and a time-trend analysis for the whole period. Main endpoints: age-standardized utilization rates of C-section in low-risk pregnancies and deliveries per 100 deliveries. Secondary endpoints: Estimated excess-cases per geographical unit of analysis in two scenarios of minimized utilization. Results: C-section is widely used in all examined countries (ranging from 19% of Slovenian deliveries to 33% of deliveries in Portugal). With the exception of Portugal, there are no systematic variations in intensity of use across areas in the same country. Cross-country comparison of lower-value C-section leaves Denmark with 10% and Portugal with 2%, the highest and lowest. Such behaviour was stable over the period of analysis. Within each country, the scattered geographical patterns of use intensity speak for local drivers playing a major role within the national trend. Conclusion: The analysis conducted suggests plenty of room for enhancing value in obstetric care and equity in women’s access to such within the countries studied. The analysis of geographical variations in lower-value care can constitute a powerful screening tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]