Quality systems in Dutch health care institutions

The implementation of quality systems in Dutch health care was supervised by a national committee during 1990-1995. To monitor the progress of implementation a large survey was conducted in the beginning of 1995. The survey enclosed all subsectors in health care. A postal questionnaire-derived from the European Quality Award-was sent to 1594 health care institutions; the response was 74%. The results showed that in 13% of the institutions a coherent quality system had been implemented. These institutions reported, among other effects, an increase in staff effort and job satisfaction despite the increased workload; 59% of the institutions had implemented parts of a quality system. It appeared that management pay more attention to human resource management compared to documentation of the quality system. The medical staff pay relatively more attention to protocol development than to quality-assurance procedures. Patients were hardly involved in these quality activities. The research has shown that it is possible to monitor the progress of implementation of quality systems on a national level in all subsectors of health care. The results play an important role in the discussions and policy on quality assurance in health care. (aut.ref.

Patient expectations of fair complaint handling in hospitals: empirical data

BACKGROUND: A common finding in several studies is patients' dissatisfaction with complaint handling in health care. The reasons why are for the greater part unknown. The key to an answer may be found in a better understanding of patients' expectations. We investigated patients' expectations of complaint handling in hospitals. METHODS: Subjects were patients who had lodged a complaint at the complaint committees of 74 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 424 patients (response 75%) completed a written questionnaire at the start of the complaint procedures. Derived from justice theory, we asked what they expected from fair procedures, fair communication and fair outcome of complaint handling. RESULTS: The predominant reason for complainants to lodge a complaint was to prevent the incident from happening again. Complainants expected fair procedures from the complaint committee, in particular an impartial position. This was most important to 87% of the complainants. They also expected to be treated respectfully. Furthermore, they expected the hospital and the professional involved to respond to their complaint. A change in hospital performances was the most wanted outcome of complaint handling, according to 79% of the complainants. They also expected disclosure from the professionals. Professionals should admit a mistake when it had occurred. More complainants (65%) considered it most important to get an explanation than an apology (41%). Only 32% of complainants expected the professional to make an effort to restore the doctor-patient relationship. A minority of complainants (7%) wanted financial compensation. CONCLUSION: Nearly all complainants want to prevent the incident from happening again, not out of pure altruism, but in order to restore their sense of justice. We conclude that complaint handling that does not allow for change is unlikely to meet patients' expectations. Secondly, complaint handling should not be left exclusively to complaint committees, the responses of hospital and professionals are indispensable

Furthering patient adherence: A position paper of the international expert forum on patient adherence based on an internet forum discussion

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As the problem of patient non-adherence persists and a solution appears hard to be found, it continues to be important to look for new ways to further the issue. We recently conducted a meta-review of adherence intervention studies which yielded a preliminary agenda for future research, practice and theory development in patient adherence. The objective of the present project was to find out to what extent adherence experts consider this agenda relevant and feasible.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The thirty-five corresponding authors of the review studies included in the meta-review were invited to join the International Expert Forum on Patient Adherence and to participate in a four-week web-based focus group discussion. The discussion was triggered by the points on the preliminary agenda presented as propositions to which forum members could react. Two researchers analysed the transcripts and selected relevant phrases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty adherence experts participated. Various ideas and viewpoints were raised. After the closure of the web-site, the expert forum was asked to authorize the synthesis of the discussion, to list the propositions in order of priority and to answer a few questions on the use of the web-based focus group as a tool to obtain expert opinions. Their ranking showed that the development of simple interventions is the most promising step to take in fostering patient adherence, preferably within a multidisciplinary setting of medical, pharmaceutical, social and technical science and, not in the least, by incorporating patients' perspectives.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>For enhancing adherence, the development of simple interventions originating from a multidisciplinary perspective including patients' input, appears most promising. Disclosing patients' perspectives requires open communication about patients' expectations, needs and experiences in taking medication and about what might help them to become and remain adherent.</p

Complaints handling in hospitals: an empirical study of discrepancies between patients' expectations and their experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many patients are dissatisfied with the way in which their complaints about health care are dealt with. This study tested the assumption that this dissatisfaction consists – in part at least – of unmet expectations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subjects were 279 patients who lodged a complaint with the complaints committees of 74 hospitals in the Netherlands. They completed two questionnaires; one on their expectations at the start of the complaints handling process, and one on their experiences after the complaints procedure (pre-post design; response 50%). Dependent variables are patients' satisfaction and their feeling that justice was done; independent variables are the association between patients' expectations and their experiences.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Only 31% of the patients felt they had received justice from the complaints process.</p> <p>Two thirds of the patients were satisfied with the conduct of the complaints committee, but fewer were satisfied with the conduct of the hospital or the medical professional (29% and 18%). Large discrepancies between expectations and experiences were found in the case of doctors not admitting errors when errors had been made, and of hospital managements not providing information on corrective measures that were taken. Discrepancies collectively explained 51% of patients' dissatisfaction with the committee and one third of patients' dissatisfaction with the hospital and the professional. The feeling that justice was done was influenced by the decision on the complaint (well-founded or not), but also by the satisfaction with the conduct of the committee, the hospital management and the professional involved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It is disappointing to observe that less than one third of the patients felt that justice had been done through the complaints handling process. This study shows that the feeling that justice had been done is not only influenced by the judgement of the complaints committee, but also by the response of the professional. Furthermore, hospitals and professionals should communicate on how they are going to prevent a recurrence of the events that led to the complaint.</p

Patient risk profiles and practice variation in nonadherence to antidepressants, antihypertensives and oral hypoglycemics

BACKGROUND: Many patients experience difficulties in following treatment recommendations. This study's objective is to identify nonadherence risk profiles regarding medication (antidepressants, antihypertensives, and oral hypoglycemics) from a combination of patients' socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity presented within general practice and medication characteristics. An additional objective is to explore differences in nonadherence among patients from different general practices. METHODS: Data were obtained by linkage of a Dutch general practice registration database to a dispensing registration database from the year 2001. Subjects included in the analyses were users of antidepressants (n = 4,877), antihypertensives (n = 14,219), or oral hypoglycemics (n = 2,428) and their GPs. Outcome variables were: 1) early dropout i.e., a maximum of two prescriptions and 2) refill nonadherence (in patients with 3+ prescriptions); refill adherence < 80% was considered as nonadherence. Multilevel modeling was used for analyses. RESULTS: Both early dropout and refill nonadherence were highest for antidepressants, followed by antihypertensives. Risk factors appeared medication specific and included: 1) non-western immigrants being more vulnerable for nonadherence to antihypertensives and antidepressants; 2) type of medication influencing nonadherence in both antihypertensives and antidepressants, 3) GP consultations contributing positively to adherence to antihypertensives and 4) somatic co-morbidity influencing adherence to antidepressants negatively. There was a considerable range between general practices in the proportion of patients who were nonadherent. CONCLUSION: No clear risk profiles for nonadherence could be constructed. Characteristics that are correlated with nonadherence vary across different types of medication. Moreover, both patient and prescriber influence adherence. Especially non-western immigrants need more attention with regard to nonadherence, for example by better monitoring or communication. Since it is not clear which prescriber characteristics influence adherence levels of their patients, there is need for further research into the role of the prescriber

Patient adherence to medical treatment: a review of reviews

BACKGROUND: Patients' non-adherence to medical treatment remains a persistent problem. Many interventions to improve patient adherence are unsuccessful and sound theoretical foundations are lacking. Innovations in theory and practice are badly needed. A new and promising way could be to review the existing reviews of adherence to interventions and identify the underlying theories for effective interventions. That is the aim of our study. METHODS: The study is a review of 38 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of adherence interventions published between 1990 and 2005. Electronic literature searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The scope of the study is patient adherence to medical treatment in the cure and care sector. RESULTS: Significant differences in the effectiveness of adherence interventions were found in 23 of the 38 systematic reviews. Effective interventions were found in each of four theoretical approaches to adherence interventions: technical, behavioural, educational and multi-faceted or complex interventions. Technical solutions, such as a simplification of the regimen, were often found to be effective, although that does not count for every therapeutic regimen.Overall, our results show that, firstly, there are effective adherence interventions without an explicit theoretical explanation of the operating mechanisms, for example technical solutions. Secondly, there are effective adherence interventions, which clearly stem from the behavioural theories, for example incentives and reminders. Thirdly, there are other theoretical models that seem plausible for explaining non-adherence, but not very effective in improving adherence behaviour. Fourthly, effective components within promising theories could not be identified because of the complexity of many adherence interventions and the lack of studies that explicitly compare theoretical components. CONCLUSION: There is a scarcity of comparative studies explicitly contrasting theoretical models or their components. The relative weight of these theories and the effective components in the interventions designed to improve adherence, need to be assessed in future studies. (aut.ref.