[Health care claims per medical specialty in the Netherlands: a 10-year overview]. / Schadeclaims per medisch specialisme.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quantity and size of health care claims per medical specialty in the past 10 years. DESIGN: Descriptive, evaluative and comparative study. METHOD: Anonymised damage claim data from Centramed and MediRisk were used for this study. The numbers and sizes of the claims per specialty have been analysed over a ten-year period and plotted against production numbers of the various specialties, calculated on the basis of DBC data. All damage claims were related to regular hospital care in the Netherlands and were submitted or closed in the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 15,115 claims were submitted during the period under study. 16.2% of these were related to non-surgical specialties, 64.7% to surgical specialties, 10.8% to supporting specialties, 0.7% to paramedics working at the hospital and the specialty was impossible to find out for 7.6% of them. The total cost of all damage claims closed during the study period was € 229,224,433. Of the total damage burden, 19% was paid out to patients with claims against non-surgical specialties and 63% to patients with claims against surgical specialties. General surgery, orthopaedics and gynaecology together were responsible for 47% of all submitted claims for damages and for 52% of the damage burden. CONCLUSION: General surgery, orthopaedics and gynaecology invariably are, just as in previous studies, the specialties with the highest number of damage claims and the largest damage burden. Even when corrected for production volumes, these specialties comparatively have the most and most expensive damage claims.

[Implementation of innovations in healthcare: radiotherapy as an example]. / Implementatie van innovaties in de zorg.

The implementation of innovations is considered necessary in healthcare, both for improving patient outcomes and services and to reduce costs. Two problems can occur during the implementation process: innovations that have not been properly evaluated in terms of patient outcomes or cost-effectiveness can sometimes spread quickly, whereas innovations that have shown to lead to significant improvements in a research study setting may struggle to find their way into clinical practice. Problems may also arise when organizational innovations are implemented that are not evidence-based: an example would be the implementation of a new ICT system that affects the patient's environment negatively upon introduction. In this article, the problems surrounding innovation implementation in medical care are described in general and in more concrete terms, we describe how Dutch radiotherapy centres perform in this area. Based on the findings, a systematic plan is described that can help to innovate more effectively and efficiently to the benefit of clinical practice in all disciplines.