Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care

Background: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. Objective: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. Methods: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?. Results: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. Conclusions: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders

Randomized Delayed-Start Trial of Levodopa in Parkinson's Disease

Contains fulltext : 201287.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Protocol of a randomised delayed-start double-blind placebo-controlled multi-centre trial for Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease: the LEAP-study

Contains fulltext : 152630.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate if early treatment with levodopa has a beneficial disease modifying effect on Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms and functional health, improves the ability to (maintain) work, and reduces the use of (informal) care, caregiver burden, and costs. Additionally, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early levodopa treatment will be assessed. METHODS: To differentiate between the direct symptomatic effects and possible disease modifying effects of levodopa, we use a randomised delayed-start double-blind placebo-controlled multi-centre trial design. Patients with early stage PD whose functional health does not yet necessitate initiation of PD-medication will be randomised to either 40 weeks of treatment with levodopa/carbidopa 100/25 mg TID including 2 weeks of dose escalation or to 40 weeks placebo TID. Subsequently, all patients receive levodopa/carbidopa 100/25 mg TID for 40 weeks. There are 8 assessments: at baseline and at 4, 22, 40, 44, 56, 68, and 80 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the difference in the mean total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores between the early- and delayed-start groups at 80 weeks. Secondary outcome measures are rate of progression, the AMC Linear Disability Score, side effects, perceived quality of life with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), ability to (maintain) work, the use of (informal) care, caregiver burden, and costs. 446 newly diagnosed PD patients without impaired functional health need to be recruited in order to detect a minimal clinical relevant difference of 4 points on the total UPDRS at 80 weeks. DISCUSSION: The LEAP-study will provide insights into the possible disease modifying effects of early levodopa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30518857 , EudraCT number 2011-000678-72

Variation in integrated head and neck cancer care: Impact of patient and hospital characteristics

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients’ perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%–98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%–100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement

Levodopa Response in Patients With Early Parkinson Disease: Further Observations of the LEAP Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's Disease (LEAP) study enabled us to conduct post hoc analyses concerning the effects of levodopa in patients with early Parkinson disease. METHODS: The LEAP study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, delayed-start trial in which patients with early Parkinson disease were randomized to receive levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 80 weeks (early-start group) or to placebo for 40 weeks followed by levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 40 weeks (delayed-start group). We analyzed the effect of levodopa with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale on bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor. At week 80, participants answered 3 questions regarding motor response fluctuations. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were randomized to the early-start group (mean ± SD age at baseline 64.8 ± 8.7 years; 71% male) and 223 to the delayed-start group (mean ± SD age at baseline 65.5 ± 8.8 years; 69% male). The difference between the early- and delayed-start groups in mean change from baseline to week 4, expressed as Hedges g effect size, was -0.33 for bradykinesia, -0.29 for rigidity, and -0.25 for tremor (for all symptoms indicating a small effect in favor of the early-start group); from baseline to week 22, respectively, -0.49, -0.36, and -0.44 (small to medium effect); and from baseline to week 40, respectively, -0.32, -0.19, and -0.27 (small effect). At 80 weeks, fewer patients in the early-start group (46 of 205 patients, 23%) experienced motor response fluctuations than patients in the delayed-start group (81 of 211, 38%; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: In patients with early Parkinson disease, levodopa improves bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor to the same order of magnitude. For all 3 symptoms, effects were larger at 22 weeks compared with 4 weeks. At 80 weeks, there were fewer patients with motor response fluctuations in the group that had started levodopa earlier. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that the effect of levodopa on bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor is larger after 22 weeks compared with 4 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ISRCTN30518857, EudraCT number 2011-000678-72

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care

Background: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. Objective: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. Methods: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?. Results: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. Conclusions: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders