Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input. CONCLUSION: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

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.

Patients' and health-care professionals' perspectives on adverse drug reaction burden attributed to the use of biological DMARDs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed a discrepancy between health-care professionals' (HCPs') and patients' perspective on adverse drug reaction (ADR) burden. However, it is unclear which factors make an ADR burdensome. We aimed to give insight into why ADRs are perceived as burdensome by inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD) patients, and whether this differs from the HCPs' perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using Dutch Biologic Monitor data. Participants received bimonthly questionnaires on experienced ADRs attributed to biological DMARDs and were asked to elaborate on ADR burden using a Likert-type scale and an open-ended question for clarification. Data of 440 IRD patients were analyzed following thematic analysis. A similar analysis was done with semi-structured interviews with 13 HCPs. RESULTS: We identified seven themes associated with ADR burden: 'effect on medication prescription,' 'impact on appearance,' 'impact on autonomy,' 'impact on daily life,' 'psychological consequences,' 'distressing aspects of ADR,' and 'physical consequences.' Identical themes were identified by HCPs, although they identified most subthemes in 'psychological consequences,' and less subthemes in 'impact on daily life' and 'impact on autonomy.' CONCLUSION: Patients describe perceived ADR burden in both physical and psychological themes. The HCPs' perspective is comparable, but mostly focuses on psychological impact.