Is there a mismatch between the perspectives of patients and regulators on healthcare quality?:A survey study

Objectives: Internationally, healthcare quality regulators are criticized for failing to respond to patients' complaints. Patient involvement is, therefore, an important item on the policy agenda. However, it can be argued that there is a discrepancy between the patients' perspective and current regulatory approaches. This study examines whether a discrepancy exists between the perspectives of patients and regulators on healthcare quality. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 996 people who had registered a complaint with the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate to measure expectations of and experiences with the Inspectorate. A taxonomy was used to classify their complaints into the clinical, relationship, or management domains. Results: The response was 54%. More complaints about clinical issues (56%, P = 0.000) were investigated by the regulator than complaints about organizational (37%) and relational issues (51%). Patients with complaints about management issues less often indicated (13%, P = 0.002) that healthcare is improved by making their complaint than patients with complaints about clinical or relationship issues did (22%–23%). Patients who reported about relational issues with care providers attached more importance to issuing sanctions against the care provider than other patients (mean score 2.89 versus 2.62–2.68, P = 0.006). Conclusions: The predominant clinical approach taken by regulators does not match the patients' perspective of what is relevant for healthcare quality. In addition, patients seem to be more tolerant of what they perceive to be clinical or management errors than of perceived relational deficiencies in care providers. If regulators want to give patients a voice, they should expand their horizon beyond the medical framework

Intermediate weight changes and follow-up of dietetic treatment in primary healthcare:An observational study

Background Primary health care data have shown that most patients who were treated for overweight or obesity by a dietitian did not accomplish the recommended treatment period. It is hypothesised that a slow rate of weight loss might discourage patients from continuing dietetic treatment. This study evaluated intermediate weight changes during regular dietetic treatment in Dutch primary health care, and examined whether weight losses at previous consultations were associated with attendance at follow-up consultations. Methods This observational study was based on real life practice data of overweight and obese patients during the period 2013–2017, derived from Dutch dietetic practices that participated in the Nivel Primary Care Database. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to estimate the mean changes in body mass index (BMI) during six consecutive consultations and to calculate odds ratios for the association of weight change at previous consultations with attendance at follow-up consultations. Results The total study population consisted of 25,588 overweight or obese patients, with a mean initial BMI of 32.7 kg/m2. The BMI decreased between consecutive consultations, with the highest weight losses between the first and second consultation. After six consultations, a mean weight loss of − 1.5 kg/m2 was estimated. Patients who lost weight between the two previous consultations were more likely to attend the next consultation than patients who did not lose weight or gained weight. Conclusions Body mass index decreased during consecutive consultations, and intermediate weight losses were associated with a higher attendance at follow-up consultations during dietetic treatment in overweight patients. Dietitians should therefore focus on discussing intermediate weight loss expectations with their patients

Achievement of weight loss in patients with overweight during dietetic treatment in primary health care

INTRODUCTION:Dietitians are the preferred primary health care professionals for nutritional care in overweight patients. Guidelines for dietitians recommend a weight reduction of ≥ 5% of initial body weight after one year of treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate weight change in patients with overweight who were treated by dietitians in Dutch primary health care, and to identify patient characteristics that were associated with it. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This observational study data was based on real life practice data of patients with overweight during the period 2013-2017, derived from dietetic practices that participated in the Nivel Primary Care Database. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to investigate weight change after dietetic treatment and to explore associations with patient characteristics. RESULTS:In total, data were evaluated from 56 dietetic practices and 4722 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2. The mean treatment time was 3 hours within an average timeframe of 5 months. Overall, patients had a mean weight change of -3.5% (95% CI: -3.8; -3.1) of their initial body weight, and a quarter of the patients reached a weight loss of 5% or more, despite the fact that most patients did not meet the recommended treatment duration of at least one year. The mean BMI change was -1.1 kg/m2 (95% CI: -1.2; -1.0). Higher weight reductions were shown for patients with a higher initial BMI and for patients with a longer treatment time. Sex and age were not associated with weight change, and patients with other dietetic diagnoses, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia, had lower weight reductions. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that dietetic treatment in primary health care coincided with modest weight reduction in patients with overweight. The weight loss goals were not reached for most patients, which was possibly due to a low treatment adherence

Toezien op zorgkwaliteit door de ogen van patiënten:Andere werkwijze van inspectie nodig

De inspectie gezondheidszorg en Jeugd (ig J) wil het per- spectief van patiënten meer betrekken bij haar toezicht. Burgermeldingen geven de inspectie inzicht in dit patiën- tenperspectief. Patiënten die klachten melden willen dat het probleem dat zij melden zich niet herhaalt, maar het overgrote deel van die meldingen wordt niet nader onder- zocht door de inspectie. Daarnaast worden meldingen met een klinisch aspect veel vaker onderzocht dan organisatori- sche of communicatieve problemen. Bij meldingen van pati- enten gaat het niet noodzakelijkerwijs om het afwijken van de professionele richtlijnen met schade als gevolg. Als de inspectie kwaliteit van zorg door het perspectief van de patiënt wil bekijken, kan zij het beeld dat de patiënt hun aanreikt serieuzer nemen. Het patiëntenperspectief sugge- reert dat het voor de inspectie van belang is meer aandacht te besteden aan organisatorische factoren, relationele aspecten en andere aspecten van de gezondheidszorg, naast de medisch professionele normen

Pleidooi voor een Wet toezicht kwaliteit zorgsector

__Abstract__ De afgelopen jaren zijn verschillende malen voorstellen gedaan om een algemene Toezichtwet op het terrein van de zorg te maken. Deze voorstellen behelsden vaak niet meer dan een globaal idee. Tot nu toe is nimmer onderzoek verricht naar de mogelijke opzet en meerwaarde van een dergelijke Toezichtwet. In het kader van de onlangs door ons afgeronde thematische wetsevaluatie bestuursrechtelijk toezicht op de kwaliteit van zorg1 kwam dit onderwerp nadrukkelijk bovendrijven. Een van de conclusies van deze evaluatie is dat er goede gronden zijn voor de realisatie van een integrale Toezichtwet. Daarbij gaat het in het bijzonder over de positie van de ‘leidende’ toezichthouder op het gebied van de kwaliteit van zorg, de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg (IGZ). In deze bijdrage werken wij dit nader uit. In de eerste plaats gaan wij in op de lacunes in de huidige toezichtwetgeving op het gebied van de kwaliteit van zorg. Daarna besteden wij aandacht aan eerdere discussies met betrekking tot een Toezichtwet in de zorg. Vervolgens maken wij een uitstapje naar een integrale toezichtwet in een andere maatschappelijke sector, namelijk het onderwijs. Dit alles mondt uit in een pleidooi voor een nieuwe Wet toezicht kwaliteit zorgsector en in een hoofdlijnenschets van deze wet

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