Implementing global knowledge in local practice: a WHO lung health initiative in Nepal

Clinical practice guidelines are used widely to improve the quality of primary health care in different health systems, including those of low-income countries. Often developed at international level and adapted to national contexts to increase the feasibility of effective uptake, guideline initiatives aim to transfer global scientific knowledge into local practice. The WHO's Practical Approach to Lung Health (PAL) is an example of such an initiative and is currently being developed to improve the quality of care for youths and adults with respiratory diseases. We assessed ex-ante the feasibility of successful implementation of PAL in a pilot programme in rural Nepal, studying three components: the quality of the innovation (i.e. the guidelines), the effectiveness of the implementation strategy (i.e. training) and the receptiveness of the social system of health staff at all levels (i.e. social and organizational characteristics). We assessed the guideline innovation with the AGREE instrument for guidelines, the intended implementation strategy by critical comparison with literature on effective strategies, and the social system with both a stakeholder analysis and a descriptive analysis of the health care system at district level. This ex-ante assessment of an adaptive local implementation of international WHO guidelines showed that in July 2002 the ‘implementability' of the package was challenged on the three components studied. To increase the chances of successful implementation, the national guideline development process should be improved and the implementation strategy needs to be upgraded. In order to successfully transfer global knowledge into local practice, we need to develop additional multifactorial sustained interventions that tackle other culture-specific and health system-specific barriers as well. The primary health workers are key informants for these barrier

The Dutch Consumer Quality Index: an example of stakeholder involvement in indicator development

Background: Like in several other Western countries, in the Dutch health care system regulated competition has been introduced. In order to make this work, comparable information is required about the performance of health care providers in terms of effectiveness, safety and patient experiences. Without further coordination, external actors will all try to force health care providers to be transparent. For health care providers this might result in a situation in which they have to deliver data for several sets of indicators, defined by different actors. Therefore, in the Netherlands an effort is made to define national sets of performance indicators and related measuring instruments. In this article, the following questions are addressed, using patient experiences as an example: - When and how are stakeholders involved in the development of indicators and instruments that measure the patients' experiences with health care providers? - Does this involvement lead to indicators and instruments that match stakeholders' information needs? Discussion: The Dutch experiences show that it is possible to implement national indicator sets and to reach consensus about what needs to be measured. Preliminary evaluations show that for health care providers and health insurers the benefits of standardization outweigh the possible loss of tailor-made information. However, it has also become clear that particular attention should be given to the participation of patient/consumer organisations. Summary: Stakeholder involvement is complex and time-consuming. However, it is the only way to balance the information needs of all the parties that ask for and benefit from transparency, without frustrating the health care system.

Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: a quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement.

ISSUES: Countries and international organizations have recently renewed their interest in how health systems perform. This has led to the development of performance indicators for monitoring, assessing, and managing health systems to achieve effectiveness, equity, efficiency, and quality. Although the indicators populate conceptual frameworks, it is often not very clear just what the underlying concepts might be or how effectiveness is conceptualized and measured. Furthermore, there is a gap in the knowledge of how the resultant performance data are used to stimulate improvement and to ensure health care quality. ADDRESSING THE ISSUES: This paper therefore explores, individually, the conceptual bases, effectiveness and its indicators, as well as the quality improvement dynamics of the performance frameworks of the UK, Canada, Australia, US, World Health Organization, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. RESULTS: We see that they all conceive health and health system performance in one or more supportive frameworks, but differ in concepts and operations. Effectiveness often implies, nationally, the achievement of high quality outcomes of care, or internationally, the efficient achievement of system objectives, or both. Its indicators are therefore mainly outcome and, less so, process measures. The frameworks are linked to a combination of tools and initiatives to stimulate and manage performance and quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: These dynamics may ensure the proper environment for these conceptual frameworks where, alongside objectives such as equity and efficiency, effectiveness (therefore, quality) becomes the core of health systems performance

Developing a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the first phase of the development of a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system. METHODS: In January 2002, we initiated an informed interactive process with the intended users-policymakers at the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport-and academics to develop both the conceptual framework and its content. Decisions were based on consensus after discussing strategic goals of the health system, information needs of policy makers at the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, and studying existing theory and international experiences with national performance indicator frameworks. We identified objectives and criteria for a framework at the national level, constructed a conceptual model, and selected indicator areas. RESULTS: As a starting point we chose a balanced scorecard reflecting four perspectives towards health system management information at the national level. These perspectives are consumer orientation, finances, delivery of high quality care, and the ability to learn and grow. We then linked the Lalonde model for population health to a balanced scorecard model. The constructed model makes the relationship between population health and health system management apparent, and facilitates the presentation of performance information from various perspectives. The model reflects the strategic goals of the Dutch health system, i.e. contributing to the production of health by providing necessary health care of good quality that is accessible for all Dutch citizens while simultaneously informing policy makers about the performance of the entire health system in all sectors (care, cure, prevention, and social services). The selected indicator areas for health system management information (20 in total) reflect the policy and management functions of the government and the defined public goals of the health system. The model was formally adopted by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in February 2003, and since then individual indicator areas have been operationalized by 30 representatives of various departments at the Ministry with continuous external research support. CONCLUSION: The merit of linking the balanced scorecard inspired model to public health data is that it facilitates the visualization of the contribution of the health system to the improvement of population health. The method of an intensive interactive indicator development process between policy makers and researchers has so far proven successful

Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?

OBJECTIVES: To identify and weigh the various criteria for priority setting, and to assess whether a recently evaluated lung health programme in Nepal should be considered a priority in that country. METHODS: Through a discrete choice experiment with 66 respondents in Nepal, the relative importance of several criteria for priority setting was determined. Subsequently, a set of interventions, including the lung health programme, was rank ordered on the basis of their overall performance on those criteria. RESULTS: Priority interventions are those that target severe diseases, many beneficiaries and people of middle-age, have large individual health benefits, lead to poverty reduction and are very cost-effective. Certain interventions in tuberculosis control rank highest. The lung health programme ranks 13th out of 34 interventions. CONCLUSION: This explorative analysis suggests that the lung health programme is among the priorities in Nepal when taking into account a range of relevant criteria for priority setting. The multi-criteria approach can be an important step forward to rational priority setting in developing countries

Cost-effectiveness of a family and DNA based screening programme on familial hypercholesterolaemia in The Netherlands.

AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the current screening programme on Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) in relatives of diagnosed FH-patients in The Netherlands. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 2229 screened FH-relatives, including age, sex, risk factor status and screening outcome, were combined with the Framingham risk function and national disease-specific cost data to arrive at a model-based comparison of survival and costs, with and without the screening programme. Cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for various treatment strategies, with no screening as reference. Costs per life year gained varied between 25.5- and 32-thousand Euros, depending upon the precise treatment strategy after a positive screen. The costs for screening (tracing the FH-positive individuals) were much lower than the follow-up costs (treatment), of which 80% were costs for statins. Consequently, the costs per life year gained of alternative screening programmes are about the same. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness ratio of FH screening is within the range requiring explicit political consideration in The Netherlands. As the costs of statin treatment are the single most important determinant of costs, policy decisions reduce to decisions on the acceptability of statin treatment for this risk group. Pending major changes in statin price, clear guidelines should be developed on how screen positive individuals should be treated, since not all of them have an elevated cholesterol level