Search

Objective: Clinician's experiences of providing care are identified as a key outcome associated with value-based healthcare (VBHC). In contrast to patient-reported experience measures, measurement tools to capture clinician's experiences in relation to VBHC initiatives have received limited attention to date. Progressing from an initial 18-item clinician experience measure (CEM), we sought to develop and evaluate the reliability of a set of 10 core clinician experience measure items in the CEM-10. Methods: A multi-method project was conducted using a consensus workshop with clinicians from a range of NSW Health local health districts to reduce the 18-item CEM to a short form 10-item core clinician experience measure (CEM-10). The CEM-10 was deployed with clinicians providing diabetes care, care for older adults and virtual care across all districts and care settings of New South Wales, Australia. Psychometric analysis was used to determine the internal consistency of the tool and its suitability for diverse clinical contexts. Results: Consensus building sessions led to a rationalised 10-item tool, retaining the four domains of psychological safety (two items), quality of care (three items), clinician engagement (three items) and interprofessional collaboration (two items). Data from four clinician cohorts (n = 1029) demonstrated that the CEM-10 four-factor model produced a good fit to the data and high levels of reliability, with factor loadings ranging from 0.77 to 0.92, with Cronbach's alpha (range: 0.79–0.90) and composite reliability (range: 0.80–0.92). Conclusions: The CEM-10 provides a core set of common clinician experience measurement items that can be used to compare clinician's experiences of providing care between and within cohorts. The CEM-10 may be supported by additional items relevant to particular initiatives when evaluating VBHC outcomes. What is known about the topic? Clinician experience of providing care is an outcome of interest for health systems and services internationally who are implementing value-based care initiatives. Review evidence indicates that measurement of clinician's experience of providing care should address experiences of being able to deliver quality care, collaborate with colleagues, experience psychological safety and engagement in decision-making in the workplace. What does this paper add? The paper reports the development of the short form clinician experience measure (CEM-10) and its initial validation in four value-based healthcare initiatives of NSW Health. What are the practical implications for practitioners? The CEM-10 can be used as a core set of items embedded within evaluations of value-based care initiatives to benchmark and examine experiences across clinician cohorts. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Measuring clinician experience in value-based health care initiatives: a 10-item core clinician experience measure" which appeared in the last issue of the periodical.

Introduction: Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness. Design Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used. Data sources A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Data synthesis: Results were merged using reference‐management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature. Results: A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV. Conclusion: Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence‐based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults., Methods: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers., Results: The top ten included questions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The number one question was, 'How urgently do soft-tissue knee injuries need to be treated for the best outcome?'. This reflects the concerns of patients, carers, and the wider multidisciplinary team., Conclusion: This validated process has generated ten important priorities for future soft-tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions in the final workshop have been published on the JLA website., Competing Interests: The authors disclose receipt of the following financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support from the British Orthopaedic Association, British Association for Surgery of the Knee, British Orthopaedic Sports Trauma and Arthroscopy Association and Day 1 Trauma Charity., (© 2024 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.)