The Patient Centered Assessment Method (PCAM) for Action-Based Biopsychosocial Evaluation of Patient Needs: Validation and Perceived Value of the Dutch Translation.

The Patient Centered Assessment Method (PCAM) is an action-based tool that supports professionals to engage in a biopsychosocial assessment with patients and measure their needs. It is a promising tool for person-centered care. As the Netherlands lacks such a tool, a Dutch version was developed. Furthermore, we aimed to contribute to the relatively limited insights into the psychometric properties and value of the tool when used as part of a needs assessment in primary care. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to study construct validity and Cronbach's alpha was computed to assess reliability. Furthermore, we interviewed 15 primary care professionals who used the PCAM. It was confirmed that each PCAM domain measures a separate construct, informed by the biopsychosocial model. The tool showed adequate reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83). Despite face validity concerns, the tool was mainly valued for measurement of patient needs and to facilitate action planning. Criticism of the PCAM pertained to a limited focus on the patient perspective, which is one of the crucial aspects of person-centered care. These rich, mixed-method insights can help to improve the value of the PCAM, as one of the few multifunctional tools to support professionals in holistic assessments.

Economic Evaluation of New Models of Care: Does the Decision Change Between Cost-Utility Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis?

OBJECTIVES: To experiment with new approaches of collaboration in healthcare delivery, local authorities implement new models of care. Regarding the local decision context of these models, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may be of added value to cost-utility analysis (CUA), because it covers a wider range of outcomes. This study compares the 2 methods using a side-by-side application. METHODS: A new Dutch model of care, Primary Care Plus (PC+), was used as a case study to compare the results of CUA and MCDA. Data of patients referred to PC+ or care-as-usual were retrieved by questionnaires and administrative databases with a 3-month follow-up. Propensity score matching together with generalized linear regression models was used to reduce confounding. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: Although both methods indicated PC+ as the dominant alternative, complementary differences were observed. MCDA provided additional evidence that PC+ improved access to care (standardized performance score of 0.742 vs 0.670) and that improvement in health-related quality of life was driven by the psychological well-being component (standardized performance score of 0.710 vs 0.704). Furthermore, MCDA estimated the budget required for PC+ to be affordable in addition to preferable (€521.42 per patient). Additionally, MCDA was less sensitive to the utility measures used. CONCLUSIONS: MCDA may facilitate an auditable and transparent evaluation of new models of care by providing additional information on a wider range of outcomes and incorporating affordability. However, more effort is needed to increase the usability of MCDA among local decision makers.

Economic evaluation of nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing long-term psychosocial outcome: a comparison to care-as-usual.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing psychosocial outcome at 6 months post stroke, compared with care-as-usual. DESIGN: Economic evaluation within a comparative effectiveness research design. SETTING: Primary care (2016-2017) and community settings (2011-2013) in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Persons who suffered from ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, or a transient ischaemic attack and were discharged home after visiting the emergency department, hospitalisation or inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Nurse-led stroke aftercare at 6 months post stroke addressing psychosocial functioning by providing screening, psycho-education, emotional support and referral to specialist care when needed. Care-as-usual concerned routine follow-up care including secondary prevention programmes and a consultation with the neurologist at 6 weeks post stroke. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measure of cost-effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated by the quality of life measured by the five-dimensional, three-level EuroQol. Costs were assessed using a cost-questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and social participation (Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation) restrictions subscale. RESULTS: Health outcomes were significantly better in stroke aftercare for QALYs (Δ=0.05; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) and social participation (Δ=4.91; 95% CI 1.89 to 7.93) compared with care-as-usual. Total societal costs were €1208 higher in stroke aftercare than in care-as-usual (95% CI -€3881 to €6057). Healthcare costs were in total €1208 higher in stroke aftercare than in care-as-usual (95% CI -€3881 to €6057). Average costs of stroke aftercare were €91 (SD=€3.20) per person. Base case cost-effectiveness analyses showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 679 per QALY gained. Probability of stroke aftercare being cost-effective was 64% on a €50 000 willingness-to-pay level. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing psychosocial functioning showed to be a low-cost intervention and is likely to be a cost-effective addition to care-as-usual. It plays an important role by screening and addressing psychosocial problem, not covered by usual care.

The (cost-)effectiveness and cost-utility of a novel integrative care initiative for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: the pragmatic trial protocol of Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is not optimally organized. The Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg 2.0 (NPRL2.0) provides integrated care with a biopsychosocial approach and strives to improve the Quadruple Aim outcomes: pain-related disability of patients with CMP; experiences of care of patients with CMP; meaning in the work of healthcare professionals; and healthcare costs. Firstly, in this study, the effectiveness (with regard to the functioning and participation of patients) of primary care for patients with CMP will be assessed, comparing care organized following the NPRL2.0 procedure with usual care. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility with regard to health-related quality of life and healthcare costs will be assessed. And thirdly, the effect of duration of participation in a local network in primary care will be studied. METHODS: In this pragmatic study, it is expected that two local networks with 105 patients will participate in the prospective cohort study and six local networks with 184 patients in the stepped-wedge based design. Healthcare professionals in the local networks will recruit patients. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age ≥ 18 years; having CMP; willing to improve functioning despite pain; and adequate Dutch literacy. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: pregnancy; and having a treatable medical or psychiatric disease. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline (T1), 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 9 months (T4). Questionnaires at T1 and T4 will include the Pain Disability Index and Short Form Health Survey. Questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4 will include the EQ-5D-5L, and iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires. Outcomes will be compared using linear mixed-model analysis and costs will be compared using bootstrapping methods. DISCUSSION: NPRL2.0 is a multidimensional, complex intervention, executed in daily practice, and therefore needing a pragmatic study design. The current study will assess NPRL2.0 with respect to the Quadruple Aim outcomes: patient health and costs. This will provide more information on the (cost-) effectiveness of the organization of care in a network structure regarding patients with CMP. The other two Quadruple Aim outcomes will be examined alongside this study. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register: NL7643. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7643 .

Person-centred and efficient care delivery for high-need, high-cost patients: primary care professionals' experiences.

BACKGROUND: High-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients, who typically have complex and long-term care demands, contribute considerably to the high work pressure of primary care professionals (PCPs). To improve patient as well as provider experiences, it is crucial to take into account the PCPs' perspective in designing health care strategies for HNHC patients. Therefore, this study aimed to create insight into PCPs' experienced barriers and possible solutions with regards to person-centred, efficient care delivery to HNHC patients. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group interviews with PCPs at a Dutch primary care group. A semi-structured interview guide was developed for the interviews. Qualitative content analysis was employed deductively by means of a categorisation matrix. The matrix was based on the components retrieved from the SELFIE framework for integrated care for multi-morbidity. RESULTS: Forty-two PCPs participated in five focus group interviews. Discussed barriers and solutions were related to the core of the SELFIE framework (i.e. the individual and environment), and particularly four of the six health system components in the framework: service delivery, leadership & governance, workforce, and technologies & medical products. Many discussed barriers revolved around the complex biopsychosocial needs of HNHC patients: PCPs reported a lack of time (service delivery), insufficiently skilled PCPs (workforce), and inefficient patient information retrieval and sharing (technologies & medical products) as barriers to adequately meet the biopsychosocial needs of HNHC patients. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study suggests that primary care is currently insufficiently equipped to accommodate the complex biopsychosocial needs of HNHC patients. Therefore, it is firstly important to strengthen primary care internally, taking into account the experienced lack of time, the insufficient number of equipped PCPs and lack of inter-professional information retrieval and sharing. Secondly, PCPs should be supported in cooperating and communicating more efficiently with health services outside primary care to adequately deliver person-centred, efficient care. As a prerequisite, it is crucial to direct policy efforts at the design of a strong system of social and community services. In terms of future research, it is important to assess the feasibility and effects of re-designing primary care based on the provided recommendations.

Identifying subgroups of high-need, high-cost, chronically ill patients in primary care: A latent class analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Segmentation of the high-need, high-cost (HNHC) population is required for reorganizing care to accommodate person-centered, integrated care delivery. Therefore, we aimed to identify and characterize relevant subgroups of the HNHC population in primary care by using demographic, biomedical, and socioeconomic patient characteristics. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study within a Dutch primary care group, with a follow-up period from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. Chronically ill patients were included in the HNHC population if they belonged to the top 10% of care utilizers and/or suffered from multimorbidity and had an above-average care utilization. In a latent class analysis, forty-one patient characteristics were initially used as potential indicators of heterogeneity in HNHC patients' needs. RESULTS: Patient data from 12 602 HNHC patients was used. A 4-class model was considered statistically and clinically superior. The classes were named according to the characteristics that were most dominantly present and distinctive between the classes (i.e. mainly age, household position, and source of income). Class 1 ('older adults living with partner') included 39.3% of patients, class 2 ('older adults living alone') included 25.5% of patients, class 3 ('middle-aged, employed adults with family') included 23.3% of patients, and class 4 ('middle-aged adults with social welfare dependency') included 11.9% of patients. Diabetes was the most common condition in all classes; the second most prevalent condition differed between osteoarthritis in class 1 (21.7%) and 2 (23.8%), asthma in class 3 (25.3%), and mood disorders in class 4 (23.1%). Furthermore, while general practitioner (GP) care utilization increased during the follow-up period in the classes of older adults, it remained relatively stable in the middle-aged classes. CONCLUSIONS: Although the HNHC population is heterogeneous, distinct subgroups with relatively homogeneous patterns of mainly demographic and socioeconomic characteristics can be identified. This calls for tailoring care and increased attention for social determinants of health.

Does the implementation of a care pathway for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis lead to fewer diagnostic imaging and referrals by general practitioners? A pre-post-implementation study of claims data.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) is of good quality, but there is room for improvement regarding the efficient use of diagnostic imaging and conservative treatment. Therefore a stepped-care approach, in the shape of the care pathway 'Better exercise in osteoarthritis', was implemented to reduce the number of diagnostic imaging requested by GPs and referrals of GPs to orthopaedic care. METHODS: In 2015, the pathway is implemented with the use of educational meetings, distributing guidelines and incorporating reminders in the GPs' referral application. To evaluate the effect of the pathway on the diagnostic and referral behaviour of GPs, hip and knee related health insurance claims are used together with claims of other joints and of a control region for comparison. The average number of claims and the percentage change in the post-implementation period are described. Binary logistic regression analysis is used to examine the interaction between region (intervention and control) and period (pre- and post-implementation). Using random sampling of patient records, information about the practical application of the pathway and the number of hip or knee arthroplasties is added. RESULTS: In both regions, the number of diagnostic imaging decreased and the number of initial orthopaedic consultations increased during the post-implementation period. Significant interaction effects were found in knee-related diagnostics (p ≤ 0.001) and diagnostics of other joints (p = 0.039). No significant interaction effects were found in hip-related diagnostics (p = 0.060) and in initial orthopaedic consultation claims of hip (p = 0.979), knee (p = 0.281), and other joints (p = 0.464). Being referred according to the pathway had no significant effect on the probability of undergoing arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the pathway had a positive effect on GPs diagnostic behaviour related to the knee, but not to the hip. The referral behaviour of GPs to orthopaedic care needs attention for future interventions and research, since an increase (instead of a desired decrease) in the number of initial orthopaedic consultations was found. Focusing on the entire width of care for hip and knee OA could be helpful.

Substitution of outpatient hospital care with specialist care in the primary care setting: A systematic review on quality of care, health and costs.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting. METHOD: The systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible. RESULTS: A total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design.

Specialized rheumatology nurse substitutes for rheumatologists in the diagnostic process of fibromyalgia: a cost-consequence analysis and a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-consequence analysis of the substitution of specialized rheumatology nurses (SRN) for rheumatologists (RMT) in the diagnostic process of fibromyalgia (FM), using both a healthcare and societal perspective and a 9-month period. METHODS: Alongside a randomized controlled trial, we measured costs and consequences of a nurse-led diagnostic consult (SRN group, n = 97) versus a rheumatologist-led diagnostic consult [usual care (UC) group, n = 96]. Patients were followed for 9 months. Every second month a questionnaire on medical consumption and social participation was filled out. Satisfaction was measured 1 week after the first consultation. During followup, health status was measured by health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), functional status (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire), fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength), and self-efficacy (Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale). RESULTS: Patients in the SRN group were significantly more satisfied. Improvements in health status were similar in both groups after 9 months of followup. Total costs for healthcare consumption and patient and family costs were significantly lower in the SRN group (€1298 vs €1644; difference €346; 95% CI -€746 to -€2). Total societal costs were €3853 per patient for the SRN group and €5293 for the UC group after 9 months of followup (difference €1440; 95% CI -€3721 to €577). CONCLUSION: From both a healthcare and societal perspective, the nurse-led diagnostic process can be recommended. Patients in the SRN group were significantly more satisfied, improvements in health status were similar in both groups, and total societal costs were lower for the SRN group compared to the RMT group after 9 months' followup. Registered with Current Controlled Trials, no. ISRCTN77212411.