8 research outputs found

    ABC-tool reinvented: development of a disease-specific 'Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool' for multiple chronic conditions

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates self-management is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice. METHODS: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations. RESULTS: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations

    Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure:protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study

    No full text
    INTRODUCTION: The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients' activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383)

    Recommendations for Improving Chronic Care in Times of a Pandemic Based on Patient Experiences

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound and pervasive impact on the health of chronic care patients and disrupted care systems worldwide. Our research aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on chronic care provision and provide recommendations for improving care provision, based on patient experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were held among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using stratified sampling, 23 patients with COPD, heart failure, or both were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. In the summer of 2021, online interviews were conducted. METHODS: An iterative process was adopted to analyze the data. Going back and forth through the data and our analytical structure, we first coded the data, and subsequently developed categories, themes, and aggregate dimensions. The data were synthesized in a data structure and a data table, which were analyzed using an interpretative approach. RESULTS: We found 3 dimensions through which care might be improved: (1) proactive and adaptive health care organization and use of innovative technologies, (2) assistance in maintaining patient resilience and coping strategies, and (3) health care built on outreaching and person-centered care enabling identification of individual patient needs. Experiences of impaired accessibility to care, altered and unmet care demands and patient needs, and the negative impact of national containment strategies on patient resilience support the need for improvement in these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The in-depth insight gained on the impact of the pandemic on chronic care provision was used to propose recommendations for improving care, supported by not only the what and how but also the why developments require additional efforts made by policymakers and change agents, augmented by structural use and development of innovations. Health care organizations should be enabled to rapidly respond to changing internal and external environments, develop and implement innovations, and match care to patient needs

    Effectiviteit van de ‘Ziektelastmeter COPD’: Een clustergerandomiseerde gecontroleerde trail

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). DESIGN: Cluster-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: This concerned a trial in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, involving 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7) aged ≥ 40 years. Healthcare providers were randomized to an intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were treated with the ABC tool. This innovative tool consists of a short validated questionnaire and a number of objective parameters, which collectively give a visual overview of the combined integral health; the tool subsequently produces an individualized treatment plan by means of a treatment algorithm. Patients in the control group received usual care. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in disease-specific quality of life measured, as measured by means of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, between baseline and 18 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the SGRQ total score and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) score. RESULTS: At 18-month follow-up, a significant and clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ score was seen in 34% of the patients (N=49) in the intervention group, and in the control group this figure was 22% (N=33). This difference between the two groups was significant (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). Patients in the intervention group experienced a higher quality of care than patients in the control group (0.32 points difference in PACIC, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50). CONCLUSION: Use of the ABC tool increases the disease-specific quality of life and the quality of care for COPD patients; it may therefore offer a valuable contribution to improvements in the daily care of COPD. Replication of this study in other (non-Dutch) health-care settings is recommended
    corecore