Search

Rationale: Healthcare systems remain disease oriented despite growing sustainability concerns caused by inadequate management of patients with multimorbidity. Comprehensive care programmes (CCPs) can play an important role in streamlining care delivery, but large differences in setup and results hinder firm conclusions on their effectiveness. Many elements for successful implementation of CCPs are identified, but strategies to overcome barriers and embed programmes within health systems remain unknown. Aims and Objectives: To address this knowledge gap through a detailed study of implementing a CCP in a Dutch hospital setting, including patient experiences, facilitators, barriers and ways to overcome those barriers. Additionally, this study aims to explore effects on patient satisfaction and healthcare use. Methods: A qualitative study design with 39 semistructured interviews and focus groups between July 2020 and February 2023 with 16 patients and 17 involved professionals. Additionally, effects on quantitative outcomes for patient satisfaction (PACIC‐20) and healthcare use were explored. Results: Professionals expressed a wide range of topics related to implementation and ways to overcome barriers at hospital and system level. Alterations in the design to accommodate varying care demands, focus on inclusions through referrals, and lack of long‐term support and appropriate financing were key topics. Patients expressed varying experiences, stated a strong desire for comprehensive information, and emphasised the importance of trust in caregivers. Patient satisfaction showed no effects, while healthcare use showed slight decreases in trends, but patient numbers were limited. Conclusion: The introduction of a CCP is feasible, and exploratory analysis on effectiveness shows lower hospital care use without decreasing patient satisfaction. However, this is accompanied by several challenges that show current fragmented systems still do not support implementation of integrated care initiatives. Overcoming those comes with substantial costs and may require a strong bottom‐up implementation within a motivated team and actions on all levels of healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Multimorbidity challenges quality and sustainability of healthcare systems. Care groups were introduced in the Netherlands to promote integration of chronic primary care, but it remains unknown to which degree they facilitate this. This study therefore aims to determine whether Dutch general practices perceive themselves to be capable of delivering integrated chronic care and uncover the role of care groups. Methods: We performed a survey study amongst 39 care groups and 65 healthcare providers within general practices (GPs and nurse practitioners). Results: 43% of healthcare providers within general practices are (very) dissatisfied with capabilities for chronic care to patients and 56% do not feel capable of delivering integrated care. Care groups and providers show alignment in their perception of some of the most important facilitators and barriers such as motivation and lack of time, but other factors are valued differently at both levels. Discussion: Our findings show inability of general practices to deliver integrated chronic care despite a health system that is inherently supportive of care integration and point to a mismatch between barriers and facilitators amongst practices and care groups, resulting in providers partly relying on their motivation in accommodating integrated chronic care. Conclusion: General practices are not sufficiently supported by care groups and national policies in delivering integrated chronic care. The identified mismatch between policy and practice warrants redesign of support from care groups to align policies with identified barriers and facilitators at the provider level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Besides improving the quality of care, quality improvement initiatives often also intend to produce cost savings. An example is prehabilitation, which can reduce complication rates and the length of stay in the hospital. However, the process from utilization reductions to actual societal cost savings remains uncertain in practice. Our aim was to identify barriers and facilitators throughout this process. We used the implementation of prehabilitation in a Dutch hospital as a test case. Methods: We held 20 semi-structured interviews between June and November 2023. Eighteen stakeholders were affiliated with the hospital and two with different health insurers. Nine interviews were held face-to-face and 11 via Microsoft Teams. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The first transcripts were inductively coded by two authors, the subsequent transcripts by one and checked by another. Differences were resolved through discussion. Results: We identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer expenses. All participants expected that the excess capacity will be used for other priorities. This was perceived as highly valuable and as an efficiency gain. Other barriers to capture savings included the fear of losing resilience, flexibility, status and revenue. Misalignment between service contracts among hospitals and insurers can hinder the ability to financially incentivize cost reductions. Additionally, some contract types can hinder the transfer of hospital savings to insurers. Identified facilitators included shared savings agreements, an explicit strategy targeting all stages, and labor shortage, among others. Conclusion: This study systematically describes barriers and facilitators that prevent translating quality improvement initiatives into societal cost savings. Stakeholders expect that any saved capacity will be used for other priorities, including providing care due to the increasing demand. Capturing any cash savings does not occur automatically, emphasizing the need for a strategy targeting all stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effect of integrated palliative care (IPC) on potentially inappropriate end- of-life care and healthcare-costs in the last 30 days of life in the Netherlands. Methods: Nationwide health-insurance claims data were used to assess potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 emergency room visits; ≥2 hospital admissions; >14 days hospitalization; chemotherapy; ICU admission; hospital death) and healthcare-costs in all deceased adults in IPC regions pre- and post- implementation and in those receiving IPC compared to a 1:2 matched control group. Results: In regions providing IPC deceased adults (n = 37,468) received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care post-implementation compared to pre-implementation (26.5% vs 27.9%; p < 0.05). Deceased adults who received IPC (n = 210) also received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care compared to a matched control group (14.8% vs 28.3%; p < 0.05). Mean hospital costs significantly decreased for deceased adults who received IPC (€2,817), while mean costs increased for general practitioner services (€311) and home care (€1,632). Discussion: These results highlight the importance of implementation of integrated palliative care and suitable payment. Further research in a larger sample is needed. Conclusion: This study shows less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care and a shift in healthcare costs from hospital to general practitioner and home care with IPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]