The governance of quality management in dutch health care: new developments and strategic challenges

Accountability in healthcare in the Netherlands: A scoping review

For better serving people's complex needs the subsequent movement to person-centred integrated care, requires inter-organisational cooperation and service provision by domain-overarching networks and alliances. In the development to these networks, it is relevant to explore which accountability approaches are appropriate for local inter-organisational healthcare governance. Therefore, in a scoping review we studied the current state of knowledge and practice of accountability in healthcare in the Netherlands. We found that two of the included 41 studies show characteristics of accountability towards healthcare with characteristics of integration care components, such as integration of services with accompanying accountability arrangements and development of networked accountability. The first studies are found in the literature which report on accountability in integrated care. With this we add to the international discussion about accountability as an aspect of integrated care governance, by providing insight into the current state of art of accountability in Dutch healthcare.

Stakeholders' roles and responsibilities regarding quality of care

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe how different stakeholders (society, managers, employees and clients) can together ensure the quality of care. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative data were collected from four focus group interviews conducted in three countries. All interviewees were pursuing a master's degree in social and/or health care management and had begun working in their field after completing their bachelor's degree. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Findings The society and managers are responsible for the care system as a whole and must apply system-oriented, rather than sector-oriented, thinking. Employees are responsible for ensuring the continuity of client services in their work, and managers and employees share the responsibility of achieving the organisational goals and quality standards. The clients are responsible for acting as responsible service users and providing the required information to obtain care. Communication was strongly emphasised in the data, and it necessitates cross-professional and organisational boundaries, professional and political boundaries, as well as boundaries between the professional and the client. Research limitations/implications Since the interviewees were all pursuing a master's degree in social and/or health care management, when reflecting on their work experience, they may have also been reflecting what they had learned in university. Practical implications This study emphasises the importance of collaboration and communication between stakeholders in ensuring the quality of care. Unpredictable economies, the ageing population and the ongoing integration and reorganisation of health and social care services in Europe highlight systematic and strategic approach in quality of care. Originality/value This paper claims that communication between different care stakeholders gives a more systematic and coherent framework for the quality of care. Quality of care is a strategic choice and part of the strategic decision making at the societal, political, organisational and managerial levels.

Good intentions getting out of hand - is there a future for health care guidelines?

To date, the focus of research on guidelines has been directed toward professionals, and hospitals have merely served as the context. Little research has been performed on the dilemmas of guideline adherence in hospitals, as a setting in which multiple professional guidelines have to be implemented simultaneously; also, it is still unclear which clinical guidelines have to be aligned with other external demands, such as rules, regulations, standards, indicators, norms, and so on. Hence, different ways of studying the issue of guideline implementation are called for.

Information and choice of residential care provider for older people: a comparative study in England, the Netherlands and Spain

This study compared how older people use quality information to choose residential care providers in England, the Netherlands and Spain (Catalonia). The availability of information varies between each country, from detailed inspection and survey information in the Netherlands, through to a lack of publicly available information in Catalonia. We used semi-structured interviews and group workshops with older people, families and professionals to compare experiences of the decision-making process and quality information, and also to explore what quality information might be used in the future. We found that most aspects of the decision-making experience and preferences for future indicators were similar across the three countries. The use of quality information was minimal across all three, even in England and the Netherlands where information was widely available. Differences arose mainly from factors with the supply of care. Older people were most interested in the subjective experiences of other residents and relatives, rather than ‘hard’ objective indicators of aspects such as clinical care. We find that the amount of publicly available quality information does not in itself influence the decisions or the decision-making processes of older people and their carers. To improve the quality of decisions, more effort needs to be taken to increase awareness and to communicate quality in more accessible ways, including significant support from professionals and better design of quality information.

Results of the market-oriented reform in the Netherlands: a review

The market-oriented reform in the Dutch health care system is now in its 10th year. This article offers a concise overview of some of its effects thus far on health insurance, healthcare purchasing and healthcare provision. Furthermore, attention is given to its impact on healthcare expenditures, power and trust relationships as well as the relationship between the Minister of Health and the Dutch Healthcare Authority. The reform triggered various alterations in Dutch health care some occurring quickly (e.g. health insurance), others taking longer (e.g. purchasing). These developments suggest a process of gradual transformation. The reform has instigated controversy which is increasingly framed as a power conflict between insurers and providers. Weakened consumer trust in insurers threatens the legitimacy of the reform. The relationship between Minister and Healthcare Authority appears to be more intimate than the formal independent status of this regulatory agency would suggest.

The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health-care provider: the role of the GP

BACKGROUND

Patients barely use publicly available quality information for making a decision concerning secondary health care, but instead rely on information coming from their general practitioner (GP). An intermediate role of GPs has been suggested concerning the use of publicly available quality information. The aim of the study is to quantify and explore GPs' use of publicly available quality information when referring patients or suggesting secondary health-care provider to them.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, an invitation to an electronic questionnaire was sent to 858 GPs in the south of the Netherlands. GPs were asked about their use of and perception towards publicly available quality information through closed-ended and open-ended questions. Differences among subgroups were tested for significance using Pearson's chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents (89.5%) never or rarely use publicly available quality information. They perceive them as invalid and unreliable. Distance to the hospital, prior experiences and personal contacts with specialists guide them when advising and referring. Almost 90% of respondents never or rarely suggest quality information as support for decision making to their patients. No significant differences between subgroups were observed.

CONCLUSION

This study is among the firsts exploring and quantifying GPs' use of publicly available quality information. The results suggest that publicly available quality information appears in its current format and application not useful for GPs. GPs have to be aware of their influential role in patients' decision making and possibly have to take more responsibility in guiding them through the jungle of quality information.