Search

Objective: This study aimed to describe the development and implementation of a co-designed value-based healthcare (VBHC) framework within the public dental sector in Victoria. Methods: A mixed-method study was employed. Explorative qualitative design was used to examine patient, workforce and stakeholder perspectives of implementing VBHC. Participatory action research was used to bring together qualitative narrative-based research and service design methods. An experience-based co-design approach was used to enable staff and patients to co-design services. Quantitative data was sourced from Titanium (online patient management system). Results: Building a case for VBHC implementation required intensive work. It included co-designing, collaborating, planning and designing services based on patient needs. Evidence reviews, value-stream mapping and development of patient reported outcomes (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs) were fundamental to VBHC implementation. Following VBHC implementation, a 44% lower failure to attend rate and 60% increase in preventive interventions was reported. A higher proportion of clinicians worked across their top scope of practice within a multi-disciplinary team. Approximately 80% of services previously provided by dentists were shifted to oral health therapists and dental assistants, thereby releasing the capacity of dentists to undertake complex treatments. Patients completed baseline International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement PROMs (n = 44,408), which have been used for social/clinical triaging, determining urgency of care based on risk, segmentation and tracking health outcomes. Following their care, patients completed a PREMs questionnaire (n = 15,402). Patients agreed or strongly agreed that: the care they received met their needs (87%); they received clear answers to their questions (93%); they left their visit knowing what is next (91%); they felt taken care of during their visit (94%); and they felt involved in their treatment and care (94%). Conclusion: The potential for health system transformation through implementation of VBHC is significant, however, its implementation needs to extend beyond organisational approaches and focus on sustaining the principles of VBHC across healthcare systems, policy and practice. What is known about the topic? Value-based healthcare (VBHC) has gained significant momentum within the healthcare sector and is seen as a driver for improving patient outcomes and equitable use of resources. What does this paper add? The paper describes firsthand experience and lessons learnt from implementing VBHC within a Victorian public healthcare system; the learnings are applicable to other organisations wanting to implement VBHC. What are the implications for practitioners? In implementing a co-designed VBHC framework, we ensured that its principles are applicable at both patient and population levels, centres on equity of access to care, achieves the best possible health outcomes and sustainable use of resources. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millions of Australians use the private health system every year. They should receive safe, high-quality, value-based care. However, poor policy and inadequate regulation of medical technology is driving low-value care at great expense to consumers and the broader health system. Key drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices and Human Tissue, gaps in quality and safety controls for devices being used, and marketing and conflicts of interest. All of these should be addressed to reduce low-value care in Australia's private health system, so consumers are protected from harm and limited health budgets are used effectively. What is known about the topic? With health expenditure rising unsustainably, there is a growing focus on ways to reduce low-value care to improve health outcomes and eliminate unnecessary costs. What does this paper add? This paper details drivers of low-value care in Australia's private health system and recommendations to overcome them. Drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices, gaps in safety and quality controls, and conflicts of interest and marketing. What are the implications for practitioners? These insights are relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, consumers and health business leaders with an interest in low-value care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]