Health Outcomes Management Evaluation-A National Analysis of Dutch Heart Care

Building a patient-centred nationwide integrated cardiac care registry: intermediate results from the Netherlands

This paper presents an overview of the development of an integrated patient-centred cardiac care registry spanning the initial 5 years (September 2017 to December 2022). The Netherlands Heart Registration facilitates registration committees in which mandated cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons structurally evaluate quality of care using real-world data. With consistent attendance rates exceeding 60%, a valuable network is supported. Over time, the completeness level of the registry has increased. Presently, four out of six quality registries show over 95% completeness in variables that are part of the quality policies of cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies. Notably, 93% of the centres voluntarily report outcomes related to open heart surgery and (trans)catheter interventions publicly. Moreover, outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker procedures are transparently reported by 26 centres. Multiple innovation projects have been initiated by the committees, signalling a shift from publishing outcomes transparently to collaborative efforts in sharing healthcare processes and investigating improvement initiatives. The next steps will focus on the entire pathway of cardiac care for a specific medical condition instead of focusing solely on the outcomes of the procedures. This redirection of focus to a comprehensive assessment of the patient pathway in cardiac care ultimately aims to optimise outcomes for all patients.

Value-based healthcare implementation in the Netherlands: a quantitative analysis of multidisciplinary team performance

BACKGROUND

Many hospitals worldwide have set up multidisciplinary Value Improvement (VI) teams that use the Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) theory to improve patient value. However, it remains unclear what the level of VBHC implementation is within these teams. We therefore studied the current level of VBHC implementation in VI teams.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed based on the strategic agenda for value transformation and real-world experiences with VBHC implementation. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions, mapped to seven domains, and was sent out to 25 multidisciplinary VI teams. Median scores for individual questions (scale = 1-5) and average scores per domain were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred forty VI team members completed the questionnaire. The overall average score is 3.49. The 'culture and responsibility' domain obtained the highest average score (µ = 4.11). The domain 'measure and improve outcomes' and the domain 'multidisciplinary team' obtained average scores that are slightly higher than the overall average (µ = 3.78 and µ = 3.76 respectively), and the domains 'strategy and organizational policy,' 'collaboration and sharing,' and 'IT and data' scored a little below the overall average (µ = 3.41, µ = 3.32, and µ = 3.29 respectively). The domain 'costs and reimbursement' obtained the lowest average score (µ = 2.42) of all domains, indicating that the implementation of this particular aspect of VBHC remains lagging behind.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate activity in each of the questionnaire domains. To bring VBHC implementation to the next level, more attention should be given to the financial aspects. Our questionnaire can be used in future studies to identify improvements or differences within VI teams.

Reflections on Managing the Performance of Value-Based Healthcare: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Value-based healthcare (VBHC), which can be viewed as a strategy to organize and improve healthcare services, has far-reaching organizational and managerial consequences. It is common managerial practice to support the execution of a strategy by monitoring the ensuing activities. Such monitoring provides feedback and guidance on the execution of these activities to the management of an organization and helps to realize organizational strategies. Monitoring of activities is commonly done by performance management systems. Given the rising attention in the literature and in practice for VBHC, we ask to what extent VBHC is supported by performance management systems in practice, and how we can explain what we find to support further successful implementation of VBHC.

METHODS

In our scoping review of financial and performance management at the organization or unit-level of healthcare organizations that apply value-based approaches, we identified 1267 unique papers in Embase, Medline, OVID, and Web of Science. After the (double-blinded) title and abstract screening, 398 full-text articles were assessed for further analysis.

RESULTS

Our review reveals only eleven original papers discussing specifically the integration of VBHC and performance management systems. Almost all the featured applications in these papers focus on a specific project or medical specialty. Only one paper exemplifies how VBHC has been integrated with the performance management systems of a medical institution, and no paper provides a clear link with strategy execution. We ask why this is the case and propose several explanations by studying the extant performance management literature. We see these explanations as issues for further reflection for VBHC practitioners and researchers.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that one of the reasons for the absence of papers integrating VBHC and performance management systems is formed by the tensions that exist between striving for "the best care" or even for providing "all care that is viably possible" and pursuing greater (financial) efficiency. Implementing VBHC as an important organizational strategy and explicating this strategy in the performance management systems requires that these tensions need to be brought into the fore. When this is not done, we believe that VBHC adoptions that are fully integrated with performance management systems will remain limited in practice.