Incorporating natural variation into IVF clinic league tables: The Expected Rank

Background. Rankings based on outcome are often used to present health care provider performance. These rankings do however not reflect that part of the variation in outcome between providers is caused by natural variation, and not by any differences in quality of care. The aim of this study is to compare standard methods for ranking with a novel method that takes into account natural variation. Methods. We used data on the number of treatment cycles and the number of pregnancies of 13 Dutch IVF clinics from 2004. We calculated the Expected Rank (ER), an estimate of the true rank of a provider, accounting for natural variation. We rescaled the ER to obtain the Percentile based on ER (PCER), that can be interpreted as the probability that a clinic is worse than a randomly selected other clinic. We also calculated a measure for rankability ρ, which is the part of variation between providers that is due to true differences (as opposed to natural variation). Results. The expected ranks ranged from 1.4 to 11.9 instead of the original ranks 1-13. The ER showed that some clinics performed very similar, which would be disregarded when using standard ranks. The PCER ranged from 7% to 88%. Rankability was substantial (ρ = 0.9). Conclusion. The Expected Rank provides a way to combine the attractiveness of a ranking, a single number and easy interpretation, with reliable analyses that does justice to the providers, and also allows individual comparisons

Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands:a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine

Background: Healthcare rationing can be defined as withholding beneficial care for cost reasons. One form in particular, hidden bedside rationing, is problematic because it may result in conflicting loyalties for physicians, unfair inequality among patients and illegitimate distribution of resources. Our aim is to establish whether bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands, whether it qualifies as hidden and what physician characteristics are associated with its practice. Methods: Cross-sectional online questionnaire on knowledge of -, experience with -, and opinion on rationing among physicians in internal medicine within the Dutch healthcare system. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to explore relations between hidden bedside rationing and physician characteristics. Results: The survey was distributed among 1139 physicians across 11 hospitals with a response rate of 18% (n = 203). Most participants (n = 129; 64%) had experience prescribing a cheaper course of treatment while a more effective but more expensive alternative was available, suggesting bedside rationing. Subsequently, 32 (24%) participants never disclosed this decision to their patient, qualifying it as hidden. The majority of participants (n = 153; 75%) rarely discussed treatment cost. Employment at an academic hospital was independently associated with more bedside rationing (OR = 17 95%CI 6.1–48). Furthermore, residents were more likely to disclose rationing to their patients than internists (OR = 3.2, 95%CI 2.1–4.7), while salaried physicians were less likely to do so than physicians in private practice (OR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.8). Conclusion: Hidden bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands: patient choice is on occasion limited with costs as rationale and this is not always disclosed. To what extent distribution of healthcare should include bedside rationing in the Netherlands, or any other country, remains up for debate.</p

Patient-relevant health outcomes for von Willebrand disease, platelet function disorders, and rare bleeding disorders:a Delphi study

Background: To assess patient value, it is essential to regularly measure health outcomes that matter to patients. It is currently unknown which health outcomes are important for patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders. Objectives: This study aimed to assess which health outcomes are important for patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders, consisting of von Willebrand disease, platelet function disorders, and rare bleeding disorders, as seen from the patients’, caregivers’, and healthcare professionals’ perspectives. Methods: Two panels, one consisting of patients and caregivers, and one consisting of healthcare professionals participated in a Delphi process. A list of 146 health outcomes was identified from the literature. During 3 rounds, both panels rated the importance of health outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. A health outcome was considered important by a panel if it received a median score of 5 with an IQR of ≤1. Results: In total, 13 patients, 10 caregivers, and 19 healthcare professionals participated in the Delphi study. Both panels reached consensus on the importance of health outcomes related to bleeding episodes, life-threatening complications, and the intensity and impact of menstruation. Patients and caregivers additionally reached consensus on the importance of health outcomes related to menstruation and the impact of the bleeding disorder on their daily lives. Healthcare professionals reached consensus on the importance of health outcomes related to treatment, joint health, and pain. Conclusion: In this study, health outcomes were identified that should be considered when implementing value-based health care in the care of patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders.</p

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).</p

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).</p

Pitfalls of single-study external validation illustrated with a model predicting functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Background: Prediction models are often externally validated with data from a single study or cohort. However, the interpretation of performance estimates obtained with single-study external validation is not as straightforward as assumed. We aimed to illustrate this by conducting a large number of external validations of a prediction model for functional outcome in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients.Methods: We used data from the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage International Trialists (SAHIT) data repository (n = 11,931, 14 studies) to refit the SAHIT model for predicting a dichotomous functional outcome (favorable versus unfavorable), with the (extended) Glasgow Outcome Scale or modified Rankin Scale score, at a minimum of three months after discharge. We performed leave-one-cluster-out cross-validation to mimic the process of multiple single-study external validations. Each study represented one cluster. In each of these validations, we assessed discrimination with Harrell’s c-statistic and calibration with calibration plots, the intercepts, and the slopes. We used random effects meta-analysis to obtain the (reference) mean performance estimates and between-study heterogeneity (I2-statistic). The influence of case-mix variation on discriminative performance was assessed with the model-based c-statistic and we fitted a “membership model” to obtain a gross estimate of transportability. Results: Across 14 single-study external validations, model performance was highly variable. The mean c-statistic was 0.74 (95%CI 0.70–0.78, range 0.52–0.84, I2 = 0.92), the mean intercept was -0.06 (95%CI -0.37–0.24, range -1.40–0.75, I2 = 0.97), and the mean slope was 0.96 (95%CI 0.78–1.13, range 0.53–1.31, I2 = 0.90). The decrease in discriminative performance was attributable to case-mix variation, between-study heterogeneity, or a combination of both. Incidentally, we observed poor generalizability or transportability of the model. Conclusions: We demonstrate two potential pitfalls in the interpretation of model performance with single-study external validation. With single-study external validation. (1) model performance is highly variable and depends on the choice of validation data and (2) no insight is provided into generalizability or transportability of the model that is needed to guide local implementation. As such, a single single-study external validation can easily be misinterpreted and lead to a false appreciation of the clinical prediction model. Cross-validation is better equipped to address these pitfalls.</p

Patient experiences with value-based healthcare interventions at the HIV outpatient clinic of the Erasmus Medical Centre

Background One of the aims of value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to deliver more patient-centred care. However, little is known about the effect of VBHC interventions on patient experiences. We aim to explore how patients experience VBHC as implemented in an HIV outpatient clinic in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Methods The HIV outpatient clinic of the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, an academic tertiary hospital, implemented a VBHC intervention consisting of 1) implementation of a generic quality of life questionnaire, administered before each visit, 2) a change in consultation schedule; from twice a year face-to-face to one face-to-face double consultation and one remote consultation per year, and 3) a change in consultation structure; from a single face-to-face consultation with the infectious diseases (ID) specialist to a double consultation in which the patient visits both the nurse and the ID specialist. Semi-structured interviews were held with Dutch or English-speaking adult patients, that had been a patient within Erasmus MC for more than 5 years, on their experiences with the implemented changes. Results Thirty patients were interviewed. Patients had no objections towards completing the questionnaires especially if it could provide the professionals with additional information. Patients were primarily positive about the change in consultation schedule. For the yearly remote consultation they preferred a telephone-consultation above a video-consultation. The change in consultation structure ensured that more topics, including psychosocial and medical aspects could be discussed. Some patients did not see the added value of talking to two professionals on the same day or completing the quality of life questionnaire before their consultation. Conclusion Patients are generally positive towards the VBHC interventions implemented at the HIV outpatient clinic. Our findings may inform further optimization of VBHC interventions and improve patient-centred care in outpatient HIV clinics.</p

Patient experiences with value-based healthcare interventions at the HIV outpatient clinic of the Erasmus Medical Centre

Background One of the aims of value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to deliver more patient-centred care. However, little is known about the effect of VBHC interventions on patient experiences. We aim to explore how patients experience VBHC as implemented in an HIV outpatient clinic in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Methods The HIV outpatient clinic of the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, an academic tertiary hospital, implemented a VBHC intervention consisting of 1) implementation of a generic quality of life questionnaire, administered before each visit, 2) a change in consultation schedule; from twice a year face-to-face to one face-to-face double consultation and one remote consultation per year, and 3) a change in consultation structure; from a single face-to-face consultation with the infectious diseases (ID) specialist to a double consultation in which the patient visits both the nurse and the ID specialist. Semi-structured interviews were held with Dutch or English-speaking adult patients, that had been a patient within Erasmus MC for more than 5 years, on their experiences with the implemented changes. Results Thirty patients were interviewed. Patients had no objections towards completing the questionnaires especially if it could provide the professionals with additional information. Patients were primarily positive about the change in consultation schedule. For the yearly remote consultation they preferred a telephone-consultation above a video-consultation. The change in consultation structure ensured that more topics, including psychosocial and medical aspects could be discussed. Some patients did not see the added value of talking to two professionals on the same day or completing the quality of life questionnaire before their consultation. Conclusion Patients are generally positive towards the VBHC interventions implemented at the HIV outpatient clinic. Our findings may inform further optimization of VBHC interventions and improve patient-centred care in outpatient HIV clinics.</p