Tailoring remote patient management in cardiovascular risk management for healthcare professionals using panel management: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While remote patient management (RPM) has the potential to assist in achieving treatment targets for cardiovascular risk factors in primary care, its effectiveness may vary among different patient subgroups. Panel management, which involves proactive care for specific patient risk groups, could offer a promising approach to tailor RPM to these groups. This study aims to (i) assess the perception of healthcare professionals and other stakeholders regarding the adoption and (ii) identify the barriers and facilitators for successfully implementing such a panel management approach. METHODS: In total, nineteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups were conducted in the Netherlands. Three authors reviewed the audited transcripts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Strategies (CFIR) domains were used for the thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants (GPs, nurses, health insurers, project managers, and IT consultants) participated. Overall, a panel management approach to RPM in primary care was considered valuable by various stakeholders. Implementation barriers encompassed concerns about missing necessary risk factors for patient stratification, additional clinical and technical tasks for nurses, and reimbursement agreements. Facilitators included tailoring consultation frequency and early detection of at-risk patients, an implementation manager accountable for supervising project procedures and establishing agreements on assessing implementation metrics, and ambassador roles. CONCLUSION: Panel management could enhance proactive care and accurately identify which patients could benefit most from RPM to mitigate CVD risk. For successful implementation, we recommend having clear agreements on technical support, financial infrastructure and the criteria for measuring evaluation outcomes.

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.

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 6: Global perspectives: Learning from eHealth for low-resource primary care settings and across high-, middle- and low-income countries.

BACKGROUND: eHealth offers opportunities to improve health and healthcare systems and overcome primary care challenges in low-resource settings (LRS). LRS has been typically associated with low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but they can be found in high-income countries (HIC) when human, physical or financial resources are constrained. Adopting a concept of LRS that applies to LMIC and HIC can facilitate knowledge interchange between eHealth initiatives while improving healthcare provision for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups across the globe. OBJECTIVES: To outline the contributions and challenges of eHealth in low-resource primary care settings. STRATEGY: We adopt a socio-ecological understanding of LRS, making LRS relevant to LMIC and HIC. To assess the potential of eHealth in primary care settings, we discuss four case studies according to the WHO 'building blocks for strengthening healthcare systems'. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The case studies illustrate eHealth's potential to improve the provision of healthcare by i) improving the delivery of healthcare (using AI-generated chats); ii) supporting the workforce (using telemedicine platforms); iii) strengthening the healthcare information system (through patient-centred healthcare information systems), and iv) improving system-related elements of healthcare (through a mobile health financing platform). Nevertheless, we found that development and implementation are hindered by user-related, technical, financial, regulatory and evaluation challenges. We formulated six recommendations to help anticipate or overcome these challenges: 1) evaluate eHealth's appropriateness, 2) know the end users, 3) establish evaluation methods, 4) prioritise the human component, 5) profit from collaborations, ensure sustainable financing and local ownership, 6) and contextualise and evaluate the implementation strategies.