A Grounded Theory of Interdisciplinary Communication and Collaboration in the Outpatient Setting of the Hospital for Patients with Multiple Long-Term Conditions.

Interdisciplinary communication and collaboration are crucial in the care of people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) yet are often experienced as insufficient. Through the lens of complexity science, this study aims to explain how healthcare professionals (HCPs) adapt to emerging situations in the care of patients with MLTC by examining interdisciplinary communication and collaboration in the outpatient hospital setting. We used the constant comparative method to analyze transcribed data from seven focus groups with twenty-one HCPs to generate a constructivist grounded theory of 'interdisciplinary communication and collaboration in the outpatient setting of the hospital for patients with multiple long-term conditions'. Our theory elucidates the various pathways of communication and collaboration. Why, when, and how team members choose to collaborate influences if and to what degree tailored care is achieved. There is great variability and unpredictability to this process due to internalized rules, such as beliefs on the appropriateness to deviate from guidelines, and the presence of an interprofessional identity. We identified organizational structures that influence the dynamics of the care team such as the availability of time and financial compensation for collaboration. As we strive for tailored care for patients with MLTC, our theory provides promising avenues for future endeavors.

Prediction Models for Future High-Need High-Cost Healthcare Use: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve both quality of care and cost-effectiveness, various care-management programmes have been developed for high-need high-cost (HNHC) patients. Early identification of patients at risk of becoming HNHC (i.e. case finding) is crucial to a programme's success. We aim to systematically identify prediction models predicting future HNHC healthcare use in adults, to describe their predictive performance and to assess their applicability. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE® All, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through January 31, 2021. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed through the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: Of 5890 studies, 60 studies met inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 313 unique models were presented using a median development cohort size of 20,248 patients (IQR 5601-174,242). Predictors were derived from a combination of data sources, most often claims data (n = 37; 62%) and patient survey data (n = 29; 48%). Most studies (n = 36; 60%) estimated patients' risk to become part of some top percentage of the cost distribution (top-1-20%) within a mean time horizon of 16 months (range 12-60). Five studies (8%) predicted HNHC persistence over multiple years. Model validation was performed in 45 studies (76%). Model performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination was reported in 14 studies (23%). Overall risk of bias was rated as 'high' in 40 studies (67%), mostly due to a 'high' risk of bias in the subdomain 'Analysis' (n = 37; 62%). DISCUSSION: This is the first systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020164734) of non-proprietary prognostic models predicting HNHC healthcare use. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Most identified models estimated a patient's risk to incur high healthcare expenditure during the subsequent year. However, case-finding strategies for HNHC care-management programmes are best informed by a model predicting HNHC persistence. Therefore, future studies should not only focus on validating and extending existing models, but also concentrate on clinical usefulness.

Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare rationing can be defined as withholding beneficial care for cost reasons. One form in particular, hidden bedside rationing, is problematic because it may result in conflicting loyalties for physicians, unfair inequality among patients and illegitimate distribution of resources. Our aim is to establish whether bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands, whether it qualifies as hidden and what physician characteristics are associated with its practice. METHODS: Cross-sectional online questionnaire on knowledge of -, experience with -, and opinion on rationing among physicians in internal medicine within the Dutch healthcare system. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to explore relations between hidden bedside rationing and physician characteristics. RESULTS: The survey was distributed among 1139 physicians across 11 hospitals with a response rate of 18% (n = 203). Most participants (n = 129; 64%) had experience prescribing a cheaper course of treatment while a more effective but more expensive alternative was available, suggesting bedside rationing. Subsequently, 32 (24%) participants never disclosed this decision to their patient, qualifying it as hidden. The majority of participants (n = 153; 75%) rarely discussed treatment cost. Employment at an academic hospital was independently associated with more bedside rationing (OR = 17 95%CI 6.1-48). Furthermore, residents were more likely to disclose rationing to their patients than internists (OR = 3.2, 95%CI 2.1-4.7), while salaried physicians were less likely to do so than physicians in private practice (OR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.4-0.8). CONCLUSION: Hidden bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands: patient choice is on occasion limited with costs as rationale and this is not always disclosed. To what extent distribution of healthcare should include bedside rationing in the Netherlands, or any other country, remains up for debate.