Value-Based Healthcare: A Primer for the Dermatologist.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is an increasingly employed strategy to transform healthcare organizations into economically sustainable systems that deliver high-value care. In dermatology, the need for VBHC is evident as chronic skin diseases require long-term, often expensive treatments. This narrative review aims to introduce dermatologists to the principles and implementation of VBHC. SUMMARY: VBHC emphasizes maximizing outcomes that are directly relevant to patients. Key components of VBHC include a systematic assessment of standardized patient-relevant outcomes by using core outcome sets and measurement of healthcare cost for the individual patient. Systematic reporting and comparing of risk-adjusted outcomes across the full cycle of care for a specific condition provide benchmarked feedback and actionable insights to promote high-value care and reduce low-value care. VBHC aims to organize care around the patient in condition-specific and team-based integrated practice units with multidisciplinary collaboration, utilize information technology platforms to enable digital data monitoring, reduce cost, and eventually reform payment systems to support bundled payments for the overall care cycle. VBHC implementation in practice necessitates the establishment of a systematic framework for outcome-based quality improvement, the incorporation of value and outcomes in shared decision-making practices, and the cultivation of a value-centric culture among healthcare professionals through continuous training. KEY MESSAGES: Dermatologists can benefit from implementing VBHC principles in their practice. An essential step toward value-driven dermatological care is to start measuring outcomes relevant for patients for each patient, which is lacking partly due to the absence of core outcome sets developed for clinical practice. By reducing low-value care and emphasizing optimal patient-centered outcomes, VBHC has the potential to improve the quality of care and ensure cost containment. Efforts are needed to enhance the development and uptake of VBHC in dermatological clinical practice to realize these benefits.

Geriatric Assessment in CKD Care: An Implementation Study.

Rationale & Objective: Older people with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) have complex health care needs. Geriatric evaluation preceding decision making for kidney replacement is recommended in guidelines, but implementation is lacking in routine care. We aimed to evaluate implementation of geriatric assessment in CKD care. Study Design: Mixed methods implementation study. Setting & Participants: Dutch nephrology centers were approached for implementation of geriatric assessment in patients aged ≥70 years and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≤20 mL/min/1.73 m2. Quality Improvement Activities/Exposure: We implemented a consensus-based nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment: a patient questionnaire and professionally administered test set comprising 16 instruments covering functional, cognitive, psychosocial, and somatic domains and patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes: We aimed for implementation in 10 centers and 200 patients. Implementation was evaluated by (i) perceived enablers and barriers of implementation, including integration in work routines (Normalization Measure Development Tool) and (ii) relevance of the instruments to routine care for the target population. Analytical Approach: Variations in implementation practices were described based on field notes. The postimplementation survey among health care professionals was analyzed descriptively, using an explanatory qualitative approach for open-ended questions. Results: Geriatric assessment was implemented in 10 centers among 191 patients. Survey respondents (n = 71, 88% response rate) identified determinants that facilitated implementation, ie, multidisciplinary collaboration (with geriatricians) -meetings and reports and execution of assessments by nurses. Barriers to implementation were patient illiteracy or language barrier, time constraints, and patient burden. Professionals considered geriatric assessment sufficiently integrated into work routines (mean, 6.7/10 ± 2.0 [SD]) but also subject to improvement. Likewise, the relevance of geriatric assessment for routine care was scored as 7.8/10 ± 1.2. The Clinical Frailty Score and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were perceived as the most relevant instruments. Limitations: Selection bias of interventions' early adopters may limit generalizability. Conclusions: Geriatric assessment could successfully be integrated in CKD care and was perceived relevant to health care professionals.

The number of older persons with kidney failure is increasing, many of whom have cognitive decline or are dependent on others for daily life tasks. These problems are often overlooked but relevant for future treatment choices, and they affect quality of life. We asked 10 health care centers to use tests and questionnaires to identify these issues, thus being able to offer additional support. We learned that it is possible to use these assessments in practice and that professionals found them relevant. Collaboration with geriatric departments was perceived valuable. However, there are also challenges, such as not having enough time and personnel and burden to patients. Understanding these possibilities and challenges is crucial for improving care for older patients with kidney failure.

How to Use Costs in Value-Based Healthcare: Learning from Real-life Examples.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations measure costs for business operations but do not routinely incorporate costs in decision-making on the value of care. AIM: Provide guidance on how to use costs in value-based healthcare (VBHC) delivery at different levels of the healthcare system. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Integrated practice units (IPUs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at the Leiden University Medical Center and a collaboration of seven breast cancer IPUs of the Santeon group, all in the Netherlands. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION: VBHC aims to optimize care delivery to the patient by understanding how costs relate to outcomes. At the level of shared decision-making between patient and clinician, yearly check-up consultations for DM type I were analyzed for patient-relevant costs. In benchmarking among providers, quantities of cost drivers for breast cancer care were assessed in scorecards. In continuous learning, cost-effectiveness analysis was compared with radar chart analysis to assess the value of telemonitoring in outpatient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Costs vary among providers in healthcare, but also between provider and patient. The joint analysis of outcomes and costs using appropriate methods helps identify and optimize the aspects of care that drive desired outcomes and value.

Nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment as decision-making tool in kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision-making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure. DESIGN: In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment for the decision-making process to start or forego dialysis. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision-making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho-social situation; (2) patient-related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy.

Mapping the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare in the 15 years following its introduction (2006-2021): a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically map the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare (VBHC), and to identify research gaps. DESIGN: A scoping review with an additional cited reference search was conducted, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: The search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles mentioned VBHC or value with reference to the work of Porter or provided a definition of VBHC or value. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted using a data extraction form. Two independent reviewers double extracted data from 10% of the articles. Data of the remaining articles (90%) were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The strategic agenda of Porter and Lee was used to categorise the included articles. RESULTS: The searches yielded a total of 27,931 articles, of which 1,242 were analysed. Most articles were published in North America. Most articles described an application of VBHC by measuring outcomes and costs (agenda item 2). The other agenda items were far less frequently described or implemented. Most of these articles were conceptual, meaning that nothing was actually changed or implemented. CONCLUSION: The number of publications increased steadily after the introduction of VBHC in 2006. Almost one-fifth of the articles could not be categorised in one of the items of the strategic agenda, which may lead to the conclusion that the current strategic agenda could be extended. In addition, a practical roadmap or guideline to implement VBHC is still lacking. Future research could fill this gap by specifically studying the effectiveness of VBHC in day-to-day clinical practice.

Design of a consensus-based geriatric assessment tailored for older chronic kidney disease patients: results of a pragmatic approach.

PURPOSE: Unidentified cognitive decline and other geriatric impairments are prevalent in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Despite guideline recommendation of geriatric evaluation, routine geriatric assessment is not common in these patients. While high burden of vascular disease and existing pre-dialysis care pathways mandate a tailored geriatric assessment, no consensus exists on which instruments are most suitable in this population to identify geriatric impairments. Therefore, the aim of this study was to propose a geriatric assessment, based on multidisciplinary consensus, to routinely identify major geriatric impairments in older people with advanced CKD. METHODS: A pragmatic approach was chosen, which included focus groups, literature review, inventory of current practices, an expert consensus meeting, and pilot testing. In preparation of the consensus meeting, we composed a project team and an expert panel (n = 33), drafted selection criteria for the selection of instruments, and assessed potential instruments for the geriatric assessment. RESULTS: Selection criteria related to general geriatric domains, clinical relevance, feasibility, and duration of the assessment. The consensus-assessment contains instruments in functional, cognitive, psychological, somatic, patient preferences, nutritional status, and social domains. Administration of (seven) patient questionnaires and (ten) professional-administered instruments, by nurse (practitioners), takes estimated 20 and 40 min, respectively. Results are discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting including at least nephrology and geriatric expertise, informing nephrology treatment decisions, and follow-up interventions among which comprehensive geriatric assessment. CONCLUSION: This first multidisciplinary consensus on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment intent to benefit clinical care and enhance research comparability for older patients with advanced CKD.

DIALysis or not: Outcomes in older kidney patients with GerIatriC Assessment (DIALOGICA): rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and prevalence of older patients with kidney failure who are dependent on dialysis is increasing. However, observational studies showed limited or no benefit of dialysis on mortality in subgroups of these patients when compared to conservative care. As the focus is shifting towards health-related quality of life (HRQoL), current evidence of effects of conservative care or dialysis on HRQoL in older patients is both limited and biased. Dialysis comes with both high treatment burden for patients and high costs for society; better identification of patients who might not benefit from dialysis could result in significant cost savings. The aim of this prospective study is to compare HRQoL, clinical outcomes, and costs between conservative care and dialysis in older patients. METHODS: The DIALysis or not: Outcomes in older kidney patients with GerIatriC Assessment (DIALOGICA) study is a prospective, observational cohort study that started in February 2020. It aims to include 1500 patients from 25 Dutch and Belgian centres. Patients aged ≥70 years with an eGFR of 10-15 mL/min/1.73m2 are enrolled in the first stage of the study. When dialysis is initiated or eGFR drops to 10 mL/min/1.73m2 or lower, the second stage of the study commences. In both stages nephrogeriatric assessments will be performed annually, consisting of questionnaires and tests to assess most common geriatric domains, i.e. functional, psychological, somatic, and social status. The primary outcome is HRQoL, measured with the Twelve-item Short-Form Health Survey. Secondary outcomes are clinical outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, functional status, cognitive functioning, frailty), cost-effectiveness, and decisional regret. All outcomes are (repeated) measures during the first year of the second stage. The total follow-up will be a maximum of 4 years with a minimum of 1 year in the second stage. DISCUSSION: By generating more insight in the effects of conservative care and dialysis on HRQoL, clinical outcomes, and costs, findings of this study will help patients and physicians make a shared decision on the best individual treatment option for kidney failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register ( NL-8352 ) on 5 February 2020.

Perspectives and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals with geriatric assessment in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) often live with unidentified frailty and multimorbidity. Despite guideline recommendations, geriatric assessment is not part of standard clinical care, resulting in a missed opportunity to enhance (clinical) outcomes including quality of life in these patients. To develop routine geriatric assessment programs for patients approaching ESKD, it is crucial to understand patients' and professionals' experiences with and perspectives about the benefits, facilitators and barriers for geriatric assessment. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with ESKD patients, caregivers and professionals. Participants were purposively sampled from three Dutch hospital-based study- and routine care initiatives involving geriatric assessment for (pre-)ESKD care. Transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In six focus-groups, participants (n = 47) demonstrated four major themes: (1) Perceived characteristics of the older (pre)ESKD patient group. Patients and professionals recognized increased vulnerability and (cognitive) comorbidity, which is often unrelated to calendar age. Both believed that often patients are in need of additional support in various geriatric domains. (2) Experiences with geriatric assessment. Patients regarded the content and the time spent on the geriatric assessment predominantly positive. Professionals emphasized that assessment creates awareness among the whole treatment team for cognitive and social problems, shifting the focus from mainly somatic to multidimensional problems. Outcomes of geriatric assessment were observed to enhance a dialogue on suitability of treatment options, (re)adjust treatment and provide/seek additional (social) support. (3) Barriers and facilitators for implementation of geriatric assessment in routine care. Discussed barriers included lack of communication about goals and interpretation of geriatric assessment, burden for patients, illiteracy, and organizational aspects. Major facilitators are good multidisciplinary cooperation, involvement of geriatrics and multidisciplinary team meetings. (4) Desired characteristics of a suitable geriatric assessment concerned the scope and use of tests and timing of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals were positive about using geriatric assessment in routine nephrology care. Implementation seems achievable, once barriers are overcome and facilitators are endorsed. Geriatric assessment in routine care appears promising to improve (clinical) outcomes in patients approaching ESKD.

Hospital Utilization and Costs in Older Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease Choosing Conservative Care or Dialysis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Nondialytic conservative care has been recognized as a viable alternative to chronic dialysis in older patients with end-stage kidney disease, but little is known about its consequences on hospital utilization and costs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare outpatient and inpatient hospital utilization, place of death, and hospital costs in patients aged ≥70 years old who chose conservative care (n = 100) or dialysis (n = 162) after shared decision making in a nonacademic teaching hospital between 2008 and 2016. RESULTS: Patients who chose conservative care were older than patients who chose dialysis (82.5 vs. 76.3 years). Comorbidity did not differ between the 2 patient groups. The incidence rates of outpatient visits per year were 7.1 in patients who chose conservative care and 10.7 in patients who chose dialysis (incidence rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81). The incidence rates of in-hospital days per year were, respectively, 6.0 and 9.8 (incidence rate ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88). Also in the final month of life, patients on conservative care had less outpatient visits, were less frequently hospitalized, and died less frequently in hospital than the dialysis patient group. The cost rates per year, measured from original treatment decision, were EUR 5,859 in conservative care patients and EUR 28,354 in patients who chose dialysis comprising both the predialysis and dialysis period (cost rate ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.65). Patients who chose dialysis had higher costs on dialysis sessions, outpatient care, inpatient care, laboratory tests, and medical imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who decided to forego dialysis and chose conservative care had less outpatient and inpatient hospital utilization than patients who chose dialysis, including less intensive hospital utilization near the end of life. Both overall and nondialysis-related costs were lower in patients on a conservative care pathway.

Patient-reported outcome measures: selection of a valid questionnaire for routine symptom assessment in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease - a four-phase mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in healthcare. In nephrology, there is no agreement on which chronic kidney disease (CKD) symptom questionnaire to use. Therefore, the aim of this study is to select a valid symptom questionnaire for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD. METHODS: A four-phase mixed methods approach, using qualitative and quantitative research methods, was applied. First, a systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve existing symptom questionnaires. Second, a symptom list was created including all symptoms in existing questionnaires and symptoms mentioned in interviews with patients with CKD, from which symptom clusters were identified. Next, questionnaires were selected based on predefined criteria regarding content validity. Last, two online feedback panels of patients with CKD (n = 151) and experts (n = 6) reviewed the most promising questionnaires. RESULTS: The literature search identified 121 questionnaires, of which 28 were potentially suitable for symptom assessment in patients with advanced CKD. 101 unique symptoms and 10 symptom clusters were distinguished. Based on predefined criteria, the Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Renal Version (IPOS-Renal) were selected and reviewed by feedback panels. Patients needed 5.4 and 7.5 min to complete the DSI and IPOS-Renal, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients experienced the DSI as more specific, complete and straightforward compared to the IPOS-Renal. CONCLUSIONS: The DSI was found to be valid and reliable, the most relevant, complete, and comprehensible symptom questionnaire available for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD. Routine PROMs collection could be of great value to healthcare, both at individual patient and national level. Feedback on scores and involvement of healthcare providers may promote adaptation and implementation in healthcare.

Development of an International Standard Set of Value-Based Outcome Measures for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD Working Group.

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in 366 patients aged ≥70 years with advanced CKD, who chose dialysis (n = 240) or conservative care (n = 126) after careful counselling by a multidisciplinary team in a non-academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Using a value-based health care approach (value = outcomes/cost): survival, health-related quality of life-cross-sectionally assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™-treatment burden, and treatment costs were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall survival benefit of patients on a dialysis pathway compared with patients on conservative care diminished or lost significance in patients aged ≥80 years or with severe comorbidity. There were no differences between patients managed conservatively and dialysis patients on physical and mental health summary scores (all P > 0.1). Patients on conservative care had 352.7 hospital free days per year versus 282.7 in patients on a dialysis pathway, calculated from treatment decision (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.21, P <  0.001). Annual treatment costs were lower in patients on conservative care (adjusted cost ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.67, P <  0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, conservative care is shown to be a viable treatment option in older patients with advanced CKD, particularly in the oldest old and those with severe comorbidity. By achieving similar outcomes at lower treatment burden and treatment costs, value was generated for older patients choosing conservative care and society.

Assessment of Valvular Disorders in Survivors of Hodgkin's Lymphoma Treated by Mediastinal Radiotherapy ± Chemotherapy.

As the number of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) survivors grows, understanding long-term complications becomes more important. Mediastinal radiotherapy (MRT) seems to cause valvular disease, and the prevalence might increase during follow-up. In this cross-sectional study 82 HL survivors participated (52% men, mean age 47.8 years, 50 treated with MRT). Valvular disease was diagnosed by transthoracic echocardiography and compared between HL survivors treated with and without MRT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for valvular disease. During a median follow-up of 13.4 years (range 2 to 39 years), ≥ mild valvular disease was present in 61.2% of HL survivors with MRT (n = 30), compared with 31.0% of HL survivors without MRT (n = 9; odds ratio [OR] 3.51, 95% CI 1.32 to 9.30, p = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, only current age remained predictive for ≥ mild valvular disease (OR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14, p = 0.023). Aortic regurgitation (AR) was most prevalent and irradiated patients had significantly more ≥ mild AR (38.2% vs 6.8%, p = 0.007). Within the MRT subgroup, time after radiation of >15 years was associated with AR (OR 4.70, 95% CI 1.05 to 21.03, p = 0.043), after adjusting for current age and hypertension. Severe valvular disease was present in 24.5% of HL survivors with MRT compared with 3.4% without MRT (p = 0.016). Valvular surgery was performed in 9 HL survivors (18.0%) with MRT and in none without MRT. In conclusion, the prevalence of valvular disease in HL survivors treated with MRT is high and increases with time after irradiation. Long-time screening for valvular disease by transthoracic echocardiography might be worthwhile.

Microbial aetiology, outcomes, and costs of hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia; an observational analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcome and especially costs of hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in relation to microbial aetiology. This knowledge is indispensable to estimate cost-effectiveness of new strategies aiming to prevent and/or improve clinical outcome of CAP. METHODS: We performed our observational analysis in a cohort of 505 patients hospitalised with confirmed CAP between 2004 and 2010. Hospital administrative databases were extracted for all resource utilisation on a patient level. Resource items were grouped in seven categories: general ward nursing, nursing on ICU, clinical chemistry laboratory tests, microbiology exams, radiology exams, medication drugs, and other.linear regression analyses were conducted to identify variables predicting costs of hospitalisation for CAP. RESULTS: Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most identified causative pathogen (25%), followed by Coxiella burnetii (6%) and Haemophilus influenzae (5%). Overall median length of hospital stay was 8.5 days, in-hospital mortality rate was 4.8%.Total median hospital costs per patient were €3,899 (IQR 2,911-5,684). General ward nursing costs represented the largest share (57%), followed by nursing on the intensive care unit (16%) and diagnostic microbiological tests (9%). In multivariate regression analysis, class IV-V Pneumonia Severity Index (indicative for severe disease), Staphylococcus aureus, or Streptococcus pneumonia as causative pathogen, were independent cost driving factors. Coxiella burnetii was a cost-limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS: Median costs of hospitalisation for CAP are almost €4,000 per patient. Nursing costs are the main cause of these costs.. Apart from prevention, low-cost interventions aimed at reducing length of hospital stay therefore will most likely be cost-effective.