An analysis of ophthalmology services in Finland - has the time come for a Public-Private Partnership?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We studied the prerequisites for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in the context of the Finnish health care system and more specifically in the field of ophthalmology. PPP can be defined as a more or less permanent cooperation between public and private actors, through which the joint products or services are developed and in which the risks, costs and profits are shared.</p> <p>The Finnish eye care services system is heterogeneous with several different providers and can be regarded as sub-optimal in terms of overall resource use. What is more, the public sector is suffering from a shortage of ophthalmologists, which further decreases its possibilities to meet the present needs. As ophthalmology has traditionally been a medical specialty with a substantial private sector involvement in service provision, PPP could be a feasible policy to be used in the field. We thus ask the following research question: Is there, and to what extent, an open window of opportunity for PPP?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In addition to the previously published literature, the research data consisted of 17 thematic interviews with public and private experts in the field of ophthalmology. The analysis was conducted in two stages. First, a literature-based content analysis was used to explore the prerequisites for PPP. Second, Kingdon's (1995) multiple streams theory was used to study the opening of the window of opportunity for PPP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Public and private parties reported similar problems in the current situation but defined them differently. Also, there is no consensus on policy alternatives. Public opinion seems to be somewhat uncertain as to the attitudes towards private service providers. The analysis thus showed that although there are prerequisites for PPP, the time has not yet come for a Public-Private Partnership.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Should the window open fully, the emergence of policy entrepreneurs and an opportunity for a win-win situation between public and private organizations are required.</p

Potential barriers and facilitators for implementation of an integrated care pathway for hearing-impaired persons: an exploratory survey among patients and professionals

BACKGROUND: Because of the increasing costs and anticipated shortage of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists in the care for hearing-impaired persons, an integrated care pathway that includes direct hearing aid provision was developed. While this direct pathway is still under investigation, in a survey we examined expectations and potential barriers and facilitators towards this direct pathway, of patients and professionals involved in the pathway. METHODS: Two study populations were assessed: members of the health professions involved in the care pathway for hearing-impaired persons (general practitioners (GPs), hearing aid dispensers, ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists) and persons with hearing complaints. We developed a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire for the professionals, regarding expectations, barriers, facilitators and conditions for implementation. We developed two questionnaires for persons with hearing complaints, both regarding evaluations and preferences, and administered them after they had experienced two key elements of the direct pathway: the triage and the hearing aid fitting. RESULTS: On average GPs and hearing aid dispensers had positive expectations towards the direct pathway, while ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists had negative expectations. Professionals stated both barriers and facilitators towards the direct pathway. Most professionals either supported implementation of the direct pathway, provided that a number of conditions were satisfied, or did not support implementation, unless roughly the same conditions were satisfied. Professionals generally agreed on which conditions need to be satisfied. Persons with hearing complaints evaluated the present referral pathway and the new direct pathway equally. Many, especially older, participants stated however that they would still visit the GP and ENT-specialist, even when this would not be necessary for reimbursement of the hearing aid, and found it important that the ENT-specialist or Audiological Centre evaluated their hearing aid. CONCLUSION: This study identified professional concerns about the direct pathway for hearing-impaired persons. Gaps exist in expectations amongst professions. Also gaps exist between users of the pathway, especially between age groups and regions. Professionals are united in the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a successful implementation of the direct pathway. Implementation on a regional level is recommended to best satisfy these conditions

Practice change in chronic conditions care: an appraisal of theories

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Management of chronic conditions can be complex and burdensome for patients and complex and costly for health systems. Outcomes could be improved and costs reduced if proven clinical interventions were better implemented, but the complexity of chronic care services appears to make clinical change particularly challenging. Explicit use of theories may improve the success of clinical change in this area of care provision. Whilst theories to support implementation of practice change are apparent in the broad healthcare arena, the most applicable theories for the complexities of practice change in chronic care have not yet been identified. Methods We developed criteria to review the usefulness of change implementation theories for informing chronic care management and applied them to an existing list of theories used more widely in healthcare. Results Criteria related to the following characteristics of chronic care: breadth of the field; multi-disciplinarity; micro, meso and macro program levels; need for field-specific research on implementation requirements; and need for measurement. Six theories met the criteria to the greatest extent: the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research; Normalization Process Theory and its extension General Theory of Implementation; two versions of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and Sticky Knowledge. None fully met all criteria. Involvement of several care provision organizations and groups, involvement of patients and carers, and policy level change are not well covered by most theories. However, adaptation may be possible to include multiple groups including patients and carers, and separate theories may be needed on policy change. Ways of qualitatively assessing theory constructs are available but quantitative measures are currently partial and under development for all theories. Conclusions Theoretical bases are available to structure clinical change research in chronic condition care. Theories will however need to be adapted and supplemented to account for the particular features of care in this field, particularly in relation to involvement of multiple organizations and groups, including patients, and in relation to policy influence. Quantitative measurement of theory constructs may present difficulties

A cluster randomized trial to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines on diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians in Belgium: study protocol [NTR 1369]

Contains fulltext : 70617.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most quality improvement programs in diabetes care incorporate aspects of clinician education, performance feedback, patient education, care management, and diabetes care teams to support primary care physicians. Few studies have applied all of these dimensions to address clinical inertia. AIM: To evaluate interventions to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in Belgium. INTERVENTIONS: Primary care physicians will be randomly allocated to 'Usual' (UQIP) or 'Advanced' (AQIP) Quality Improvement Programs. Physicians in the UQIP will receive interventions addressing the main physician, patient, and office system factors that contribute to clinical inertia. Physicians in the AQIP will receive additional interventions that focus on sustainable behavior changes in patients and providers. OUTCOMES: Primary endpoints are the proportions of patients within targets for three clinical outcomes: 1) glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%; 2) systolic blood pressure differences </=130 mmHg; and 3) low density lipoprotein/cholesterol < 100 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints are individual improvements in 12 validated parameters: glycosylated hemoglobin, low and high density lipoprotein/cholesterol, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, weight, physical exercise, healthy diet, smoking status, and statin and anti-platelet therapy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ANALYSIS: Statistical analyses will be performed using an intent-to-treat approach with a multilevel model. Linear and generalized linear mixed models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data, i.e., patients clustered withinimary care physicians, and repeated assessments clustered within patients. To compare patient characteristics at baseline and between the intervention arms, the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach will be used, taking the clustered nature of the data within physicians into account. We will also use the GEE approach to test for differences in evolution of the primary and secondary endpoints for all patients, and for patients in the two interventions arms, accounting for within-patient clustering. TRIAL REGISTRATION: number: NTR 1369