Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used for both quality improvement and cost control. However, the validity of readmission rates as a measure of quality of hospital care is not evident. We ...aimed to give an overview of the different methodological aspects in the definition and measurement of readmission rates that need to be considered when interpreting readmission rates as a reflection of quality of care.
We conducted a systematic literature review, using the bibliographic databases Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, Cochrane central and PubMed for the period of January 2001 to May 2013.
The search resulted in 102 included papers. We found that definition of the context in which readmissions are used as a quality indicator is crucial. This context includes the patient group and the specific aspects of care of which the quality is aimed to be assessed. Methodological flaws like unreliable data and insufficient case-mix correction may confound the comparison of readmission rates between hospitals. Another problem occurs when the basic distinction between planned and unplanned readmissions cannot be made. Finally, the multi-faceted nature of quality of care and the correlation between readmissions and other outcomes limit the indicator's validity.
Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indicator is intended for accountability or pay for performance. We recommend investing resources in accurate data registration, improved indicator description, and bundling outcome measures to provide a more complete picture of hospital care.
Even though there is general agreement that primary care is the linchpin of effective health care delivery, to date no efforts have been made to systematically review the scientific evidence ...supporting this supposition. The aim of this study was to examine the breadth of primary care by identifying its core dimensions and to assess the evidence for their interrelations and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level.
A systematic review of the primary care literature was carried out, restricted to English language journals reporting original research or systematic reviews. Studies published between 2003 and July 2008 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, King's Fund Database, IDEAS Database, and EconLit.
Eighty-five studies were identified. This review was able to provide insight in the complexity of primary care as a multidimensional system, by identifying ten core dimensions that constitute a primary care system. The structure of a primary care system consists of three dimensions: 1. governance; 2. economic conditions; and 3. workforce development. The primary care process is determined by four dimensions: 4. access; 5. continuity of care; 6. coordination of care; and 7. comprehensiveness of care. The outcome of a primary care system includes three dimensions: 8. quality of care; 9. efficiency care; and 10. equity in health. There is a considerable evidence base showing that primary care contributes through its dimensions to overall health system performance and health.
A primary care system can be defined and approached as a multidimensional system contributing to overall health system performance and health.
Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing ...multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.
Strong primary care systems are often viewed as the bedrock of health care systems that provide high-quality care, but the evidence supporting this view is somewhat limited. We analyzed comparative ...primary care data collected in 2009-10 as part of a European Union-funded project, the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe. Our analysis showed that strong primary care was associated with better population health; lower rates of unnecessary hospitalizations; and relatively lower socioeconomic inequality, as measured by an indicator linking education levels to self-rated health. Overall health expenditures were higher in countries with stronger primary care structures, perhaps because maintaining strong primary care structures is costly and promotes developments such as decentralization of services delivery. Comprehensive primary care was also associated with slower growth in health care spending. More research is needed to explore these associations further, even as the evidence grows that strong primary care in Europe is conducive to reaching important health system goals.
Health and social services provided at home are becoming increasingly important. Hence, there is a need for information on home care in Europe. The objective of this literature review was to respond ...to this need by systematically describing what has been reported on home care in Europe in the scientific literature over the past decade.
A systematic literature search was performed for papers on home care published in English, using the following data bases: Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Care Online. Studies were only included if they complied with the definition of home care, were published between January 1998 and October 2009, and dealt with at least one of the 31 specified countries. Clinical interventions, instrument developments, local projects and reviews were excluded. The data extracted included: the characteristics of the study and aspects of home care 'policy & regulation', 'financing', 'organisation & service delivery', and 'clients & informal carers'.
Seventy-four out of 5,133 potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, providing information on 18 countries. Many focused on the characteristics of home care recipients and on the organisation of home care. Geographical inequalities, market forces, quality and integration of services were also among the issues frequently discussed.
Home care systems appeared to differ both between and within countries. The papers included, however, provided only a limited picture of home care. Many studies only focused on one aspect of the home care system and international comparative studies were rare. Furthermore, little information emerged on home care financing and on home care in general in Eastern Europe. This review clearly shows the need for more scientific publications on home care, especially studies comparing countries. A comprehensive and more complete insight into the state of home care in Europe requires the gathering of information using a uniform framework and methodology.
BackgroundThis study explores the meaning of actionable healthcare performance indicators for quality of care-related decisions. To do so, we analyse the constructs of fitness for purpose and fitness ...for use across healthcare systems and in practice based on the literature, expert opinion and user experience.MethodsA multiphase qualitative study was undertaken. Phases included a literature review, a first round of one-on-one interviews with a panel of academics and thought leaders in the field (n=16), and a second round of interviews with real-world users of performance indicators (n=16). Thematic analysis was conducted between phases in order to triangulate findings in a stepwise process.ResultsCommon uses of healthcare performance indicators were differentiated within micro-meso-macro contexts of healthcare systems. Each purpose of use signals different decision-making tasks, and in effect information needs. An indicator’s fitness for use can be appraised by three clusters of considerations: methodological, contextual and managerial. Methodological considerations gauge an indicator’s perceived importance, engagement potential, interpretability, standardisation, feasibility of remedial actions, alignment to care models and sensitivity to change. Information infrastructure, system governance, workforce capacity and learning culture were found as enabling contextual considerations. Managerial considerations influencing an indicator’s use in practice were found to span the selection of indicators, data collection, analysis, display of results and delivery of information to decision-makers.ConclusionThe actionability of a healthcare performance indicator should be appraised by its alignment with the intended purpose of use beyond aggregate healthcare system levels, in combination with the extent to which methodological, contextual and managerial fitness for use considerations are met. Striking a better balance between the importance weighted to an indicator’s statistical merits and emphasis put to its fitness for purpose and use is needed for indicators that are ultimately actionable for quality of care-related decision-making.
While the major policy changes in the Indonesian healthcare system over the last 25 years have been well documented, less is known about the accompanying changes in inequalities in healthcare ...utilisation during this period. Our study aimed to describe the trends in income-related inequalities in healthcare utilisation in Indonesia during the period 1993-2014.
A repeated cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Indonesian Family Life Surveys from 1993, 2000, 2007, and 2014. We measured outpatient and inpatient healthcare utilisation in public and private provider as well as the overall utilisation. Standardised prevalence rate and relative index of inequality (RII) were used to measure the extent of inequalities in healthcare utilisation by income level (income-related inequalities).
Relatively large income-related inequalities were observed in the utilisation of private outpatient care and public and private inpatient care in 1993. Income-related inequalities in public and private outpatient care utilisation decreased between 1993 and 2007 but increased in 2014. Income-related inequalities in public and private inpatient care utilisation continued to decrease between 1993 and 2014. The largest decrease was observed in private inpatient care utilisation.
Income-related inequalities in all types of healthcare utilisation decreased until 2007. This trend continued until 2014 only for public and private inpatient care utilisation. This phenomenon may be explained by the changes to the healthcare system (e.g. expansion of the government health insurance programme and health sector decentralisation), which coincided with the changes in inequalities in healthcare utilisation in Indonesia.
Objective of this study was to better understand the use of performance data for evidence-based decision-making by managers in hospitals and other healthcare organisations in Europe in 2019. In order ...to explore why, what and how performance data is collected, reported and used, we conducted a cross-sectional study based on a self-reported online questionnaire and a follow-up interactive workshop. Our study population were participants of a pan-European professional Exchange Programme and their hosts (n = 125), mostly mid-level hospital managers. We found that a substantial amount of performance data is collected and reported, but could be utilised better for decision-making purposes. Motivation to collect and report performance data is equally internal and external, for improvement as well as for accountability purposes. Benchmarking between organisations is recognised as being important but is still underused. A plethora of different data sources are used, but more should be done on conceptualising, collecting, reporting and using patient-reported data. Managers working for privately owned organisations reported greater use of performance data than those working for public ones. Strategic levels of management use performance data more for justifying their decisions, while managers on operational and clinical levels use it more for day-to-day decision-making. Our study showed that, despite the substantial and increasing use of performance data for evidence-based management, there is room and need to further explore and expand its role in strategic decision-making and supporting a shift in healthcare from organisational accountability towards the model of learning organisations.
...it misses the opportunity to go the ‘extra mile’ needed for this important topic. Five years after the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border ...healthcare, still, less than 0.05% of European Union (EU) citizens receive healthcare treatments abroad under the Directive.2 Most cross-border healthcare claims are made within the context of the Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. The authors should have considered recommendations geared towards actors that actually have a mandate to change current cross-border arrangements, such as National and Regional Contact Points, the Network of Regional Hubs, the European Committee of the Regions and the EU. ...the authors seem to be unaware of the recent public consultation launched (November 2019 to January 2020) by the European Committee of the Regions through its Network of Regional Hubs, to investigate the implementation of the Directive at the territorial level.
Little is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) ...inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.
A sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.
We identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).
To improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.
PDF
