Mapping the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare in the 15 years following its introduction (2006-2021): a scoping review

MMpowerment: Empowering patients with multiple myeloma for shared decision-making by developing an intervention to integrate personal preferences into digital care pathways

OBJECTIVE

As part of a quality improvement initiative in the context of value-based health care we aimed to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process in the care pathway for Multiple Myeloma as part of a digital care pathway (DCP). For this, more insight was needed in health care professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on SDM, and how SDM elements could be addressed in a DCP for MM to facilitate HCPs' performance of SDM.

METHODS

HCPs were interviewed as per the theory of planned behaviour and the model of organizational context and SDM (phase 1). Multidisciplinary development sessions were organized to discuss concepts of the solution with HCPs (phase 2). The solution was evaluated with two patients from the quality improvement team.

RESULTS

In phase 1, ten interviews were held. HCPs' attitudes and the subjective norm towards SDM were positive, and the intention to perform SDM was high. The clinical environment (physical context, disease characteristics, assumptions about patient characteristics, and workflows) for MM posed challenges on the actual SDM behavior. Education and use of the DCP to create awareness of SDM were seen as possible facilitators for SDM. A prepared and active patient would facilitate the SDM process. In phase 2, three concept solutions were developed before arriving at the final solution. The final solution consisted of three elements to incorporate SDM steps in the DCP: 1) creating patient awareness and activation with two questions about their preferences prior to a consultation, 2) visualisation of preferences centrally in the DCP to trigger HCP to discuss them, 3) monitoring and improving SDM with patient-questionnaires after decision-making. Patients and HCPs were willing to implement it.

CONCLUSION

HCPs intention to engage in SDM was high, but their actual behaviour was challenged by the clinical environment. A 3-element DCP-based intervention was developed to increase SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Input on the solution was obtained from end-users including two patients and ten healthcare professionals.

Implementation of value-based healthcare in ophthalmology: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to identify and summarise how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is implemented in the field of ophthalmology.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted by searching empirical and non-empirical articles from from electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest and Scopus) and other methods starting January 2006 (the year Porter and Teisberg introduced VBHC) up to 31 December 2023.

RESULTS

1.081 records were screened, and 12 articles (8 empirical studies and 4 non-empirical articles) were used for data extraction. Most articles were published in the UK. Most articles described the implementation of VBHC agenda by measuring outcomes and costs. All the included empirical studies reported implementation effect; otherwise, non-empirical articles were only described proposed implementation.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of VBHC in ophthalmology has shown a positive impact on enhancing patient value and reducing healthcare costs. Nevertheless, the study highlighted that no provider or healthcare system has fully embraced and implemented VBHC, comprehensively addressing the entire value agenda.

How to Use Costs in Value-Based Healthcare: Learning from Real-life Examples

BACKGROUND

Healthcare organizations measure costs for business operations but do not routinely incorporate costs in decision-making on the value of care.

AIM

Provide guidance on how to use costs in value-based healthcare (VBHC) delivery at different levels of the healthcare system.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Integrated practice units (IPUs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at the Leiden University Medical Center and a collaboration of seven breast cancer IPUs of the Santeon group, all in the Netherlands.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

VBHC aims to optimize care delivery to the patient by understanding how costs relate to outcomes. At the level of shared decision-making between patient and clinician, yearly check-up consultations for DM type I were analyzed for patient-relevant costs. In benchmarking among providers, quantities of cost drivers for breast cancer care were assessed in scorecards. In continuous learning, cost-effectiveness analysis was compared with radar chart analysis to assess the value of telemonitoring in outpatient follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Costs vary among providers in healthcare, but also between provider and patient. The joint analysis of outcomes and costs using appropriate methods helps identify and optimize the aspects of care that drive desired outcomes and value.

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.

Value-Based Integrated Care: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare services worldwide are transforming themselves into value-based organizations. Integrated care is an important aspect of value-based healthcare (VBHC), but practical evidence-based recommendations for the successful implementation of integrated care within a VBHC context are lacking. This systematic review aims to identify how value-based integrated care (VBIC) is defined in literature, and to summarize the literature regarding the effects of VBIC, and the facilitators and barriers for its implementation.

METHODS

Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails databases were searched from inception until January 2022. Empirical studies that implemented and evaluated an integrated care intervention within a VBHC context were included. Non-empirical studies were included if they described either a definition of VBIC or facilitators and barriers for its implementation. Theoretical articles and articles without an available full text were excluded. All included articles were analysed qualitatively. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) was used to analyse the VBIC interventions. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

After screening 1328 titles/abstract and 485 full-text articles, 24 articles were included. No articles were excluded based on quality. One article provided a definition of VBIC. Eleven studies reported-mostly positive- effects of VBIC, on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Nineteen studies reported facilitators and barriers for the implementation of VBIC; factors related to reimbursement and information technology (IT) infrastructure were reported most frequently.

CONCLUSION

The concept of VBIC is not well defined. The effect of VBIC seems promising, but the exact interpretation of effect evaluations is challenged by the precedence of multicomponent interventions, multiple testing and generalizability issues. For successful implementation of VBIC, it is imperative that healthcare organizations consider investing in adequate IT infrastructure and new reimbursement models. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021259025).

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

How to Use Lean Thinking for the Optimization of Clinical Pathways: A Systematic Review and a Proposed Framework to Analyze Pathways on a System Level

Lean Thinking and clinical pathways are commonly used concepts to improve healthcare. However, little is known on how to use Lean Thinking for the optimization of pathways or the quantification of both concepts. This study aims to create a framework to analyze pathways with Lean Thinking on a system level, by quantifying the seven wastes, flow and pull. A systematic literature review was performed. Inclusion criteria were the focus of the article on a well-defined group of patients and studied a pathway optimization with Lean Thinking. Data were extracted on measured outcomes, type of intervention and type of researched pathway. Thirty-six articles were included. No articles described the implementation of the Lean Thinking philosophy or studied the development of their people and partners ("4 P" model). Most articles used process optimization tools or problem-solving tools. The majority of the studies focused on process measures. The measures found in the review were used as input for our suggested framework to identify and quantify wastes, flow, and pull in a clinical pathway. The proposed framework can be used to create an overview of the improvement potential of a pathway or to analyze the level of improvement after an enhancement is introduced to a pathway. Further research is needed to study the use of the suggested quantifications.

Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.

DESIGN

A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.