Validity of the self-administered comorbidity questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has selected the self-administered comorbidity questionnaire (SCQ) to adjust case-mix when comparing outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment between healthcare providers. However, the SCQ has not been validated for use in IBD patients. Objectives: We assessed the validity of the SCQ for measuring comorbidities in IBD patients. Design: Cohort study. Methods: We assessed the criterion validity of the SCQ for IBD patients by comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported comorbidities (as noted in the electronic health record) of the 13 diseases of the SCQ using Cohen’s kappa. Construct validity was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient between the SCQ and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), clinician-reported SCQ, quality of life, IBD-related healthcare and productivity costs, prevalence of disability, and IBD disease activity. We assessed responsiveness by correlating changes in the SCQ with changes in healthcare costs, productivity costs, quality of life, and disease activity after 15 months. Results: We included 613 patients. At least fair agreement (κ &gt; 0.20) was found for most comorbidities, but the agreement was slight (κ &lt; 0.20) for stomach disease [κ = 0.19, 95% CI (−0.03; 0.41)], blood disease [κ = 0.02, 95% CI (−0.06; 0.11)], and back pain [κ = 0.18, 95% CI (0.11; 0.25)]. Correlations were found between the SCQ and the clinician-reported SCQ [ρ = 0.60, 95% CI (0.55; 0.66)], CCI [ρ = 0.39, 95% CI (0.31; 0.45)], the prevalence of disability [ρ = 0.23, 95% CI (0.15; 0.32)], and quality of life [ρ = −0.30, 95% CI (−0.37; −0.22)], but not between the SCQ and healthcare or productivity costs or disease activity (|ρ| ⩽ 0.2). A change in the SCQ after 15 months was not correlated with a change in any of the outcomes.Conclusion: The SCQ is a valid tool for measuring comorbidity in IBD patients, but face and content validity should be improved before being used to correct case-mix differences.</p

Systematic review: societal cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease is increasing due to biologics and varies between continents

Background: Knowledge of the cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is essential for health policy makers worldwide. Aim: To assess the cost of illness of IBD from the societal perspective taking into account time trends and geographical differences. Methods: A systematic review of all population-based studies on cost of illness of IBD published in Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Methodology of included studies was assessed and costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Results: Study methodologies differed considerably, with large differences in perspective, valuation method and population. For prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) cases in the last ten years annual healthcare costs were in Asia $4417 (range$1230-$31 161); Europe$12 439 ($7694-$15 807) and North America $17 495 ($14 454-$20 535). For ulcerative colitis (UC), these were$1606 ($309-$14 572), $7224 ($3228-$9779) and$13 559 ($13 559-$13 559). The main cost driver was medication, the cost of which increased considerably between 1985 and 2018, while outpatient and inpatient costs remained stable. IBD had a negative impact on work productivity. Annual costs of absenteeism for CD and UC were in Asia (with presenteeism) $5638 ($5638-$5638) and$4828 ($4828-$4828); Europe $2660 ($641-$5277) and$2394 ($651-$5992); North America $752 ($307-$1303) and$1443 ($85-$2350). Conclusion: IBD societal cost of illness is increasing, driven by growing costs of medication, and varies considerably between continents. While biologic therapy was expected to decrease inpatient costs by reducing hospitalisations and surgery, these costs have not declined

Women's experiences with using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in routine perinatal care in the Netherlands: A mixed-methods study

Objectives To gain insight into the experiences of women with completing and discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and tailoring their care based on their outcomes. Design A mixed-methods prospective cohort study. Setting Seven obstetric care networks in the Netherlands that implemented a set of patient-centred outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), published by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. Participants All women, receiving the PROM and PREM questionnaires as part of their routine perinatal care, received an invitation for a survey (n=460) and an interview (n=16). The results of the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic inductive content analysis was applied on the data from open text answers and the interviews. Results More than half of the survey participants (n=255) felt the need to discuss the outcomes of PROM and PREM with their care professionals. The time spent on completing questionnaires and the comprehensiveness of the questions was scored € good' by most of the survey participants. From the interviews, four main themes were identified: content of the PROM and PREM questionnaires, application of these outcomes in perinatal care, discussing PREM and data capture tool. Important facilitators included awareness of health status, receiving personalised care based on their outcomes and the relevance of discussing PREM 6 months post partum. Barriers were found in insufficient information about the goal of PROM and PREM for individual care, technical problems in data capture tools and discrepancy between the questionnaire topics and the care pathway. Conclusions This study showed that women found the PCB set an acceptable and useful instrument for symptom detection and personalised care up until 6 months post partum. This patient evaluation of the PCB set has several implications for practice regarding the questionnaire content, role of care professionals and congruity with care pathways

Value-based care pathway for inflammatory bowel disease: A protocol for the multicentre longitudinal non-randomised parallel cluster IBD Value study with baseline period

Introduction Biologics are effective for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, unwarranted variation in processes and outcomes has been reported in the treatment of IBD. A care pathway for the treatment of IBD has the potential to reduce practice variation and improve outcomes. This study aims to compare the effect of a uniform care pathway for the treatment of patients with IBD with biologics to the current situation. Methods and analysis IBD Value is a longitudinal multicentre non-randomised parallel cluster trial with a baseline period. The study takes place in eight centres in the Netherlands. The baseline period will run for 12 months, after which the care pathway will be implemented in 6 of the 8 participating hospitals during the implementation phase of 3 months. Hereafter, the effect of the care pathway will be assessed for 12 months. Total study period is 27 months. The primary outcome is the effect of the care pathway on disease control (IBD-Control questionnaire). Secondary outcomes are the effect of the care pathway on the other outcomes of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement IBD standard set, health-related generic quality of life, patient experiences and degree of variation; cost effectiveness of the care pathway; and the variation between hospitals in the aforementioned outcomes in the baseline period. Outcomes will be measured every 6 months. The study started on 1 December 2020 and a minimum of 200 patients will be included. Ethics and dissemination The study was deemed not to be subject to Dutch law (WMO; Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act) by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands (registration number: MEC-2020-075) and a waiver was provided. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. Trial registration number NL8276

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough

Abstract Background Between-center variation in outcome may offer opportunities to identify variation in quality of care. By intervening on these quality differences, patient outcomes may be improved. However, whether observed differences in outcome reflect the true quality improvement potential is not known for many diseases. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the effect of differences in performance on structure and processes of care, and case-mix on between-center differences in outcome after endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke. Methods In this observational cohort study, ischemic stroke patients who received EVT between 2014 and 2017 in all 17 Dutch EVT-centers were included. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death), at 90 days. We used random effect proportional odds regression modelling, to analyze the effect of differences in structure indicators (center volume and year of admission), process indicators (time to treatment and use of general anesthesia) and case-mix, by tracking changes in tau2, which represents the amount of between-center variation in outcome. Results Three thousand two hundred seventy-nine patients were included. Performance on structure and process indicators varied significantly between EVT-centers (

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough

Abstract Background Between-center variation in outcome may offer opportunities to identify variation in quality of care. By intervening on these quality differences, patient outcomes may be improved. However, whether observed differences in outcome reflect the true quality improvement potential is not known for many diseases. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the effect of differences in performance on structure and processes of care, and case-mix on between-center differences in outcome after endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke. Methods In this observational cohort study, ischemic stroke patients who received EVT between 2014 and 2017 in all 17 Dutch EVT-centers were included. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death), at 90 days. We used random effect proportional odds regression modelling, to analyze the effect of differences in structure indicators (center volume and year of admission), process indicators (time to treatment and use of general anesthesia) and case-mix, by tracking changes in tau2, which represents the amount of between-center variation in outcome. Results Three thousand two hundred seventy-nine patients were included. Performance on structure and process indicators varied significantly between EVT-centers (