MMpowerment: Empowering patients with multiple myeloma for shared decision-making by developing an intervention to integrate personal preferences into digital care pathways.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a quality improvement initiative in the context of value-based health care we aimed to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process in the care pathway for Multiple Myeloma as part of a digital care pathway (DCP). For this, more insight was needed in health care professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on SDM, and how SDM elements could be addressed in a DCP for MM to facilitate HCPs' performance of SDM. METHODS: HCPs were interviewed as per the theory of planned behaviour and the model of organizational context and SDM (phase 1). Multidisciplinary development sessions were organized to discuss concepts of the solution with HCPs (phase 2). The solution was evaluated with two patients from the quality improvement team. RESULTS: In phase 1, ten interviews were held. HCPs' attitudes and the subjective norm towards SDM were positive, and the intention to perform SDM was high. The clinical environment (physical context, disease characteristics, assumptions about patient characteristics, and workflows) for MM posed challenges on the actual SDM behavior. Education and use of the DCP to create awareness of SDM were seen as possible facilitators for SDM. A prepared and active patient would facilitate the SDM process. In phase 2, three concept solutions were developed before arriving at the final solution. The final solution consisted of three elements to incorporate SDM steps in the DCP: 1) creating patient awareness and activation with two questions about their preferences prior to a consultation, 2) visualisation of preferences centrally in the DCP to trigger HCP to discuss them, 3) monitoring and improving SDM with patient-questionnaires after decision-making. Patients and HCPs were willing to implement it. CONCLUSION: HCPs intention to engage in SDM was high, but their actual behaviour was challenged by the clinical environment. A 3-element DCP-based intervention was developed to increase SDM. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Input on the solution was obtained from end-users including two patients and ten healthcare professionals.

Value-based healthcare implementation in the Netherlands: a quantitative analysis of multidisciplinary team performance.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals worldwide have set up multidisciplinary Value Improvement (VI) teams that use the Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) theory to improve patient value. However, it remains unclear what the level of VBHC implementation is within these teams. We therefore studied the current level of VBHC implementation in VI teams. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed based on the strategic agenda for value transformation and real-world experiences with VBHC implementation. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions, mapped to seven domains, and was sent out to 25 multidisciplinary VI teams. Median scores for individual questions (scale = 1-5) and average scores per domain were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred forty VI team members completed the questionnaire. The overall average score is 3.49. The 'culture and responsibility' domain obtained the highest average score (µ = 4.11). The domain 'measure and improve outcomes' and the domain 'multidisciplinary team' obtained average scores that are slightly higher than the overall average (µ = 3.78 and µ = 3.76 respectively), and the domains 'strategy and organizational policy,' 'collaboration and sharing,' and 'IT and data' scored a little below the overall average (µ = 3.41, µ = 3.32, and µ = 3.29 respectively). The domain 'costs and reimbursement' obtained the lowest average score (µ = 2.42) of all domains, indicating that the implementation of this particular aspect of VBHC remains lagging behind. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate activity in each of the questionnaire domains. To bring VBHC implementation to the next level, more attention should be given to the financial aspects. Our questionnaire can be used in future studies to identify improvements or differences within VI teams.

Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles. RESULTS: We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes. CONCLUSION: Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

How to Use Lean Thinking for the Optimization of Clinical Pathways: A Systematic Review and a Proposed Framework to Analyze Pathways on a System Level.

Lean Thinking and clinical pathways are commonly used concepts to improve healthcare. However, little is known on how to use Lean Thinking for the optimization of pathways or the quantification of both concepts. This study aims to create a framework to analyze pathways with Lean Thinking on a system level, by quantifying the seven wastes, flow and pull. A systematic literature review was performed. Inclusion criteria were the focus of the article on a well-defined group of patients and studied a pathway optimization with Lean Thinking. Data were extracted on measured outcomes, type of intervention and type of researched pathway. Thirty-six articles were included. No articles described the implementation of the Lean Thinking philosophy or studied the development of their people and partners ("4 P" model). Most articles used process optimization tools or problem-solving tools. The majority of the studies focused on process measures. The measures found in the review were used as input for our suggested framework to identify and quantify wastes, flow, and pull in a clinical pathway. The proposed framework can be used to create an overview of the improvement potential of a pathway or to analyze the level of improvement after an enhancement is introduced to a pathway. Further research is needed to study the use of the suggested quantifications.

Real-world outcomes of first-line chemotherapy for unresectable stage III and IV bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: For many malignancies, considerable divergence between the efficacy found in clinical trials and effectiveness in routine practice have been reported (efficacy-effectiveness gap). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy-effectiveness gap in palliative first-line (1L) chemotherapy treatment (CTx) for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: From seven Dutch teaching hospitals, all patients diagnosed with unresectable stage III (cT2-4aN1-3M0) and IV (cT4b and/or cM1) disease, who received 1L-CTx (for both primary as recurrent disease after radical cystectomy) between 2008 and 2016, were captured. Results were compared with data from seven randomised trials that investigated 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin (GemCis) and/or gemcitabine + carboplatin (GemCarbo). RESULTS: Of the 835 included patients, 191 received 1L-CTx. Median overall survival (mOS) of GemCis patients (N = 88) was 10.4 months [95% CI 7.9-13.0], which was shorter compared to clinical trial findings (range mOS: 12.7-14.3 months) despite comparable clinical characteristics. The mOS of GemCarbo patients (N = 92) was 9.3 months [95% CI 7.5-11.1]. Patients who received GemCarbo had worse prognostic characteristics (higher age, impaired renal function and worse performance status (all P-values < 0.001)) compared to GemCis patients, but were equal in occurrence of dose reductions (24.4% vs. 29.5%, P-value = 0.453), early termination (55.7% vs. 54.1%, P-value = 0.839), clinical best response (P-value = 0.733), and toxicity (68.1% vs. 63.3%, P-value = 0.743). In multivariable regression, GemCis was not superior to GemCarbo (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.55-1.47], P-value = 0.674). CONCLUSION: There seems to be an efficacy-effectiveness gap in 1L GemCis treatment, despite patients having similar baseline characteristics. Early termination of treatment occurred more often and dose reduction less often compared to clinical trials, hinting towards abandonment of treatment in case of adverse events. Patients treated with 1L GemCis did not have superior survival compared to GemCarbo patients, even though GemCarbo patients had worse baseline characteristics.

The Intervention Selection Toolbox to improve patient-relevant outcomes: an implementation and qualitative evaluation study in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The concept of value-based healthcare is being used worldwide to improve healthcare. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was developed to bridge the gap of value-based healthcare, between insights in outcomes and actual quality improvement initiatives. In this study we aimed to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox in daily practice of a quality improvement team in a hospital setting. METHODS: A methodological triangulation design was used. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was used by a multidisciplinary quality improvement team for colorectal cancer care in a large teaching hospital. In-depth semi-structured interviews, focusing on the key elements of process evaluation, were conducted after implementation with representatives of the quality improvement team to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox. Quantitative data regarding improvement initiatives and degree of implementation was also collected. RESULTS: The use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox initially resulted in 80 potential quality improvement initiatives. Eventually, two high potential improvement initiatives were selected. Some components of the toolbox were successfully implemented in daily practice, although 'standard monitoring' and 'causal chain analysis' proved more difficult to implement. Qualitative analysis was performed with ten members of the multidisciplinary team before thematic saturation occurred. Interviewed members had a wide range in characteristics: age 28-61 years, clinical experience 6-38 years and educational attainment from vocational program to academic doctorate. The Interviews showed added value in the use of the toolbox, but identified time and organizational management as restricting factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Intervention Selection Toolbox is useful to systematically identify improvement initiatives with impact on health outcomes that matter to patients. However, before implementation organizational structure should be optimized to maximize success and efficiency on integration of the Intervention Selection Toolbox.

Outcomes in pulmonary sarcoidosis: results of a newly implemented prednisone protocol.

Background and aim Prednisone is used as first-line therapy for patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis. There is however no clear association between prednisone dose and FVC change in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis. In order to improve our standard of care we introduced a more conservative prednisone protocol. Methods This study is a single centre observational study, applying value-based healthcare (VBHC) and quality improvement (QI) principles. Prednisone intake was reduced from a starting dose of 40 mg to a starting dose of 20 mg. Primary outcomes evaluated were FVC, FEV1 and DLCO % predicted. The secondary outcome measure was BMI. Results 369 patients were included in the old-cohort and 215 in the new-cohort. In the old-cohort, 182 (49.0%) of the patients were treated with prednisone. In total, 114 patients (62.6%) were treated according to the old protocol with a mean initial prednisone dose of 32.1 ±14.2 mg. In the new-cohort, 93 patients (45.0%) were treated with prednisone of which 53 patients (57.0%) received prednisone according to the new protocol. The mean initial prednisone dose in the new-cohort was 21.4 ±9.8 mg. Changes in FVC and FEV1 % predicted did not vary. Change in % predicted DLCO was 2.4 ±9.3 for the old-cohort and -1.3 ±11.4 for the new-cohort (p = 0.01). No statistically significant changes in BMI were observed. Conclusions Our results indicate that in more than half of the patients the new protocol was followed. Data support the observation that a more conservative prednisone regimen might be equally effective, looking at changes in pulmonary function and BMI.

Why real world outcome information is indispensable in making treatment decisions for multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: A next step in value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to use outcome information (OI) to inform patients about (personalized) outcomes of care in order to support decision-making processes. We aimed to explore multiple myeloma (MM) patients' and caregivers' views on communication of OI and (shared) decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Focus groups with MM patients and caregivers. Main topics were experiences and needs with information provision, communication, decision-making, and use of OI. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in an iterative process by two researchers using open coding. Member checks were performed. RESULTS: Two focus groups were held with 11 patients (91% male, M=71 years old) and 10 caregivers (89% partners). Information needs were different per moment in the disease trajectory and purpose. Patients were implicitly involved in decisions, but they were not always aware of options and no active weighing of values took place. Outcome information was mostly provided on an individual level, to monitor disease progression and initiate decisions about the need for changes in ongoing treatment regimens (follow-up treatment lines). Patients appreciated the current process of information provision and decision-making, but prefer more option awareness, a bigger role in decision-making and more OI to 1) weigh outcomes for decision-making; 2) get insight in their care trajectory; and 3) compare with other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were satisfied with information provision and decision-making, but they were only implicitly involved in decisions. Real world OI derived from VBHC improvement cycles for MM may fulfil MM patients' and caregivers' information needs and support treatment decision-making.

Five years' experience with value-based quality improvement teams: the key factors to a successful implementation in hospital care.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, value-based healthcare (VBHC) has become one of the most accepted concepts for fixing the 'broken' healthcare systems. Numerous hospitals have embraced VBHC and are trying to implement value-based quality improvement (VBQI) into their practice. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how to practically implement VBHC and organizations differ in their approach. The aim of this study was to explore the main factors that were experienced as hindering and/or supporting in the implementation of VBQI teams in hospital care. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured interviews with 43 members of eight VBQI teams in a large Dutch top-clinical teaching hospital. Participants included physicians, physician assistants, nurses, VBHC project leaders, managers, social workers, researchers and paramedics. Interview grids were structured according to the RE-AIM model (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance). A thematic content analysis with open coding was used to identify emerging (sub)themes. RESULTS: We identified nine main factors divided over three domains (organization, culture and practice) that determined whether the implementation of VBQI teams was successful or not: 1). Practical organization of value-based quality improvement teams, 2). Organizational structure 3). Integration of VBHC with existing quality improvement approaches and research 4). Adoption and knowledge of the VBHC concept in the hospital 5). Multidisciplinary engagement 6). Medical leadership 7). Goal setting and selecting quality improvement initiatives 8). Long-cycle benchmarking and short-cycle feedback 9). Availability of outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study goes beyond the general VBHC theory and provides healthcare providers with more detailed knowledge on how to practically implement value-based quality improvement in a hospital care setting. Factors in the 'organization' and 'practice' domain were mentioned in the strategic value agenda of Porter and Lee. Though, this study provides more practical insight in these two domains. Factors in the 'culture' domain were not mentioned in the strategic value agenda and have not yet been thoroughly researched before.

Redesigning value-based hospital structures: a qualitative study on value-based health care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: A crucial component of value-based health care concerns the redesign of organizational structures. In theory, hospital structures should follow value creation: addressing medical conditions for specific groups of patients over full cycles of care. In practice, however, it remains unclear how hospitals can reorganize themselves into value-based structures. The purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which Dutch hospitals are currently implementing and pursuing value-based redesign. METHODS: This qualitative exploratory study used semi-structured interviews and a focus group for data collection. Transcripts were analyzed through deductive coding, for which we used Mintzberg's theory on organizational structures, particularly his work on design parameters. RESULTS: In their efforts to create more value-based structures, Dutch hospitals often employ a variety of liaison devices, such as project teams and committees. By contrast, the actual formation of units around medical conditions is much rarer. Outcome data are widely used within planning and control systems, and some hospitals partake in external benchmarking. Not all hospitals use cost indicators for monitoring performance. CONCLUSIONS: Value-based redesign is not necessarily a matter of radical changes or binary choices. Instead, as Dutch hospitals show, it can be an incremental process, with a variety of potential knobs to turn to various degrees. Health care executives, managers, and professionals thus have a wide range of options when they aim for more value-based structures. Our conceptualization of "value-based design parameters" can help guide the selection and implementation of strategies and mechanisms for further coordination around medical conditions over full cycles of care.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation. DESIGN: The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature. ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION: Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users. CONCLUSION: There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported.

Effectiveness and implementation of SHared decision-making supported by OUTcome information among patients with breast cancer, stroke and advanced kidney disease: SHOUT study protocol of multiple interrupted time series.

INTRODUCTION: Within the value-based healthcare framework, outcome data can be used to inform patients about (treatment) options, and empower them to make shared decisions with their health care professional. To facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) supported by outcome data, a multicomponent intervention has been designed, including patient decision aids on the organisation of post-treatment surveillance (breast cancer); discharge location (stroke) and treatment modality (advanced kidney disease), and training on SDM for health care professionals. The SHared decision-making supported by OUTcome information (SHOUT) study will examine the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multiple interrupted time series will be used to stepwise implement the intervention. Patients diagnosed with either breast cancer (N=630), stroke (N=630) or advanced kidney disease (N=473) will be included. Measurements will be performed at baseline, three (stroke), six and twelve (breast cancer and advanced kidney disease) months. Trends on outcomes will be measured over a period of 20 months. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived level of involvement in decision-making. Secondary outcomes regarding effectiveness will include patient-reported SDM, decisional conflict, role in decision-making, knowledge, quality of life, preferred and chosen care, satisfaction with the intervention, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes. Outcomes regarding implementation will include the implementation rate and a questionnaire on the health care professionals' perspective on the implementation process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical research Ethics Committees United in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study. Bureau Onderzoek & Innovatie of Santeon, the Netherlands, approved this study. The results will contribute to insight in and knowledge on the use of outcome data for SDM, and can stimulate sustainable implementation of SDM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8374, NL8375 and NL8376.

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.

Development of an online patient decision aid for kidney failure treatment modality decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients' risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice. METHODS: The International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice. RESULTS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A 'patients-like-me' infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Hospital variation in treatment patterns and oncological outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Population-based studies on treatment patterns in oncology and corresponding clinical outcomes can help identify strategies towards optimal value for patients. This study was performed to describe the variation in treatment patterns and major oncological outcomes for muscle-invasive or metastatic bladder cancer (MIBC/mBC) patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cT2-4aN0-3M0-1 disease between 2008 and 2016 in seven large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were included. Baseline characteristics, disease stage, intended and definitive treatment, and oncological outcomes were collected. Patients were categorized based on cTNM-stage: (1) cT2-4aN0M0, (2) cT2-4aN1-3M0 and (3) cT4b and/or M1. RESULTS: The total study population comprised 1853 patients, of which 1303 patients were diagnosed with cT2-4aN0M0 disease. Overall, curative treatment was intended in 81% (range 74-85%, P value = 0.132). Radical cystectomy (RC) and curative radiotherapy (RTx) ranged between hospitals from 42 to 66% and 13 to 27%, respectively (P value < 0.001). For 334 patients staged cT4b and/or M1, frequencies for palliative therapy and best supportive care (no anti-cancer therapy) ranged between hospitals from 20 to 54% and 44 to 71%, respectively (P value < 0.001). There was no association between hospital site and overall survival (OS) in a univariable and multivariable Cox regression for survival analysis (after adjusting for age and cT-stage), for all three cTNM-groups. Neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy (NAIC) utilization rates before RC ranged from 8 to 38% (P value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is large inter-hospital variation in treatment intent in MIBC/mBC patients. This variation does not seem to translate to differences in overall survival rates. There is an ongoing trend of increased use of RC. Utilisation of NAIC is relatively low considering European guideline recommendations.

Health Outcomes Management Evaluation-A National Analysis of Dutch Heart Care.

AIMS: A group of heart centres in the Netherlands have been at the forefront internationally to implement the principles of value-based healthcare. This study aims to give an up-to-date assessment of outcome-based quality improvement in 2020 at a national level in Dutch heart care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Physicians and healthcare professionals for each participating hospital filled out a questionnaire with 26 detailed questions on quality improvement and organization of care. In total, 20 hospitals participated; 11 heart centres with thoracic surgery and 9 without thoracic surgery. Results show that outcome reports are actively used within the heart centres to support quality improvement initiatives. In 50% of the centres, apart from physicians, also nurses and hospital management are involved. For 60% of the heart centres, outcome measurement is embedded in strategy and annual plans. The stage of development of supporting IT infrastructure (outcome measurement in the Electronic Health Record and dashboards) is very diverse. A wide range of different learning strategies supports outcome-based quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Health outcomes have become a relevant element in quality improvement and organization of Dutch heart centres. Earlier research shows that in 2012-2016 heart centres focused mainly on measuring outcomes. Now in 2020, heart centres are more able to actually use the acquired insights based on these measurements to initiate improvement projects. The diversity in how this is done indicates that this field is still strongly developing and shows potential for heart centres to share best practices in the implementation of value-based healthcare.

The new strategic agenda for value transformation.

The model for value-based healthcare introduced in 2006 by Porter and Teisberg is still relevant, but it is incomplete. Porter and Teisberg put a strong focus on measuring outcomes, but how to use these measurements to actually improve quality of care has not been described. In addition, value-based healthcare as originally introduced neglects that a true shift from volume to patient value requires a change in culture and way of working of healthcare professionals. The original strategic agenda for value transformation (in short: 'value agenda') consists of six elements: organize into Integrated Practice Units (1), measure outcomes and costs for every patient (2), move to bundled payments for care cycles (3), integrate care delivery systems (4), expand geographic reach (5), and build an enabling information technology platform (6). For value-based healthcare to become a reality, the strategic agenda needs to be extended with four elements. First, healthcare providers need to set up a systematic approach for value-based quality improvement. Second, value needs to be integrated in patient communication. Third, we should invest in a culture of value delivery. And fourth, we should build learning platforms for healthcare professionals based on patient outcome data. Best practices on value-based healthcare implementation are working on these four elements in addition to the original value agenda. In conclusion, a new strategic agenda for value transformation is proposed that combines the vision of the founders of value-based healthcare with implementation experience in order to support healthcare providers in their shift to become value-based.

Development of the First Patient-centred Set of Outcomes for Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: A Multicentre Initiative.

BACKGROUND: To improve and compare outcomes in healthcare, it is necessary to standardise outcome measurements. There are no widely accepted standardised outcome measures reflecting quality of care for bladder cancer (BCa) patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to create a standardised set of outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive or metastatic BCa, using the value-based healthcare principles. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary working group of 25 healthcare professionals and patient representatives was assembled, to develop the set. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used an online RAND-modified Delphi process to prioritise, discuss, and reach consensus regarding the outcomes, case-mix variables, and treatment factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recognising the heterogeneity of patients with BCa, the working group defined the scope as patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic BCa. A total of 24 outcomes, including ten patient-reported outcomes, were included in the standard set of outcomes, covering survival, complication rates, recurrence of disease, readmissions after treatment, and quality of life (QoL). Fourteen case-mix variables were included. The EQ-5D and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC-QLQ) questionnaires were recommended to measure QoL. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first standardised set of patient-centred outcomes for muscle-invasive and metastatic BCa. The sue of this set enables institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of BCa care, on an international level. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our group of healthcare professionals and patient representatives recommended a standardised set of patient-centred outcomes to be followed during the treatment of patients with muscle-invasive or metastatic bladder cancer, in order to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of care.

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery: A multicentre population-based study.

AIM: Unlike meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, population-based studies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have shown a significant association between open surgery and increased 30- and 90-day mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery. Long-term mortality, however, is scarcely reported. This retrospective population-based study aimed to compare long-term mortality after open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. METHOD: The Dutch Colorectal Audit and the Dutch Cancer Centre registry were used to identify patients from three large nonacademic teaching hospitals who underwent curative resection for CRC between 2009 and 2018. Patients with relative contraindications for laparoscopic surgery (cT4 or pT4 tumours, distant metastasis requiring additional resection and emergency surgery) were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term mortality with adjustment for gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, TNM stage, chemoradiation therapy and other confounders. RESULTS: We included 4531 patients, of whom 1298 (29%) underwent open surgery. The median follow-up was 43 months (interquartile range 23-71 months). Open surgery was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.45, p = 0.001). Mixed-effects Cox regression with year of surgery as a random effect also showed an increased risk after open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.52, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Open surgery seems to be associated with increased long-term mortality in the elective setting for CRC patients. A minimally invasive approach might improve long-term outcomes.