Search

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 Persons with HIV and tuberculosis (TB) co-infection require transaminase monitoring while on hepatotoxic medications. A novel paper-based, point-of-care transaminase test is in development at an anticipated cost of $1 per test. Methods To project long-term clinical outcomes and estimate the cost-effectiveness of using a paper-based fingerstick test to monitor for drug-induced liver injury (DILI), as compared with automated testing and with no laboratory monitoring. The design was a decision analytic model, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Data sources were observational cohorts and a validation study of the paper-based test. The target population was HIV/TB co-infected persons in South Africa on antiretroviral therapy who were initiating TB therapy. Interventions: (1) clinical (no laboratory) monitoring; (2) monitoring using the paper-based test with a ≥120 IU/mL threshold for positivity; (3) monitoring using the paper-based test with a ≥200 IU/mL threshold for positivity; (4) monitoring using the paper-based test using 1 of 3 categories: <120 IU/mL, 120 to 200 IU/mL, and >200 IU/mL (“bin placement”); (5) monitoring using automated ALT testing using the same 3 categories (“automated testing”). The outcome measures were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results The ICER of automated testing was $5180/QALY. Use of the paper-based test with the bin placement strategy was cost-effective compared with clinical monitoring alone. Conclusion At its current performance, monthly DILI monitoring by bin placement using the paper-based test was cost-effective, compared with clinical monitoring, in HIV/TB co-infected persons in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]