IBD patients need in health quality of care ECCO consensus.

INTRODUCTION: : Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is a lifelong disorder with increasing incidence and prevalence. IBD primarily affects young people's productivity in addition to direct and indirect costs. The chronic nature of the disease and the patients' requirement of frequent and easy access to the Health Care providers regarding lifelong medication, social and psychological support and regular follow-up in out-patient clinics are important considerations to address. AIM AND METHODS: : To define IBD patient needs in Quality of Health Care (QoHC) in Europe based on up- to date available evidence. The working group consisted of doctors, nurses and patient organizations from 12 European countries and Israel. Pub Med searching was performed as defined in the Delta Method. Each recommendation was graded (RG) in accordance with level of evidence (EL) based on Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford Centre. During UEGW 2007 the group reconvened to agree on the final version for each chapter of guideline statement RESULTS: : Pub Med search led to 6 RCT, 7 reviews, 63 original articles, but no meta-analysis regarding "Information"; "Education"; "Primary Care", "Quality of life", "Psychological help" and "Benchmarking of Health Care systems" in IBD. Seven ECCO statements have been worked out. CONCLUSION: : Evidence-based medicine in QoHC is limited. It is concluded that optimizing QoHC by "information"; "education", "benchmarking" and "psychological analysis" helps the patient to understand the disease and comply with its therapy, increasing QoL, reducing depression and anxiety. Future aspects regarding more evidence-based science and optimization of QoHC in IBD throughout Europe have been proposed.

What is important in evaluating health care quality? An international comparison of user views.

BACKGROUND: Quality of care from the perspective of users is increasingly used in evaluating health care performance. Going beyond satisfaction studies, quality of care from the users' perspective is conceptualised in two dimensions: the importance users attach to aspects of care and their actual experience with these aspects. It is well established that health care systems differ in performance. The question in this article is whether there are also differences in what people in different health care systems view as important aspects of health care quality. The aim is to describe and explain international differences in the importance that health care users attach to different aspects of health care. METHODS: Data were used from different studies that all used a version of the QUOTE-questionnaire that measures user views of health care quality in two dimensions: the importance that users attach to aspects of care and their actual experience. Data from 12 European countries and 5133 individuals were used. They were analysed using multi-level analysis. RESULTS: Although most of the variations in importance people attach to aspects of health care is located at the individual level, there are also differences between countries. The ranking of aspects shows similarities. 'My GP should always take me seriously' was in nearly all countries ranked first, while an item about waiting time in the GP's office was always ranked lowest. CONCLUSION: Differences between countries in how health care users value different aspects of care are difficult to explain. Further theorising should take into account that importance and performance ratings are positively related, that people compare their experiences with those of others, and that general and instrumental values might be related through the institutions of the health care system.

The role of quality of care in health-related quality of life in patients with IBD.

In the literature there are indications of associations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in inflammatory bowel disease and disease activity, psychological status, coping, stressful life events, and social support. The aim of this study was to examine whether a relation exists between quality of health care and HRQoL, taking possible confounding variables into account. For this purpose, one single questionnaire was compiled from existing validated questionnaires. A population-based inception cohort of 1056 patients with inflammatory bowel disease in eight countries, diagnosed 6 to 8 years prior to the study, was approached to participate. In total, 824 patients responded (78%), and 517 could be included in statistical analyses. It was shown that in inflammatory bowel disease HRQoL was indeed influenced by quality of care (particularly with regard to the parameters of "providing information," "costs," and "courtesy"), as well as by disease activity, psychological status, type of hospital, social support, stressful life events, and way of administration of the questionnaire. Patients with active disease had lower psychological status and HRQoL scores at the time of the survey than patients without active disease. However, quality of care scores did not differ between these groups. The care aspect "costs" was scored worse by CD compared with UC patients, probably caused by a potentially more expensive treatment. In conclusion, it is shown in a large exploratory study, for the first time, that in inflammatory bowel disease, quality of care has a significant role in determining health-related quality of life.

"Best practice" in inflammatory bowel disease: an international survey and audit.

Background: An observational study was conducted at eight university and four district hospitals in eight countries collaborating in clinical and epidemiological research in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to compare European health care facilities and to define current "best practice" with regard to IBD. Methods: The approach used in this multi-national survey was unique. Existing quality norms, developed for total hospital care by a specialized organization, were restricted to IBD-specific care and adapted to the frame of reference of the study group. In each center, these norms were surveyed by means of questionnaires and professional audits in all participating centers. The collected data were reported to the center, compared to data from other hospitals, and used to benchmark. Group consensus was reached with regard to defining current "best practice". Results: The observations in each center involved patient-oriented processes, technical and patient safety, and quality of the medical standard. Several findings could be directly implemented to improve IBD care in another hospital (benchmarks). These included a confidential relationship between health care worker(s) and patients, and availability of patient data. Conclusions: The observed benchmarks, in combination with other subjectively chosen "positive" procedures, have been defined as current "best practice in IBD", representing practical guidelines towards better quality of care in IBD.

Comparison of patient evaluations of health care quality in relation to WHO measures of achievement in 12 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into similarities and differences in patient evaluations of quality of primary care across 12 European countries and to correlate patient evaluations with WHO health system performance measures (for example, responsiveness) of these countries. METHODS: Patient evaluations were derived from a series of Quote (QUality of care Through patients' Eyes) instruments designed to measure the quality of primary care. Various research groups provided a total sample of 5133 patients from 12 countries: Belarus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. Intraclass correlations of 10 Quote items were calculated to measure differences between countries. The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance performance measures in the same countries were correlated with mean Quote scores. FINDINGS: Intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from low to very high, which indicated little variation between countries in some respects (for example, primary care providers have a good understanding of patients' problems in all countries) and large variation in other respects (for example, with respect to prescription of medication and communication between primary care providers). Most correlations between mean Quote scores per country and WHO performance measures were positive. The highest correlation (0.86) was between the primary care provider's understanding of patients' problems and responsiveness according to WHO. CONCLUSIONS: Patient evaluations of the quality of primary care showed large differences across countries and related positively to WHO's performance measures of health care systems.