Shared Care in Monitoring Stable Glaucoma Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Comparing the quality of care provided by a hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up unit with care as usual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included stable glaucoma patients and patients at risk for developing glaucoma. Patients in the Usual Care group (n=410) were seen by glaucoma specialists. In the glaucoma follow-up unit group (n=405), patients visited the glaucoma follow-up unit twice followed by a visit to a glaucoma specialist. The main outcome measures were: compliance to the working protocol by glaucoma follow-up unit employees; difference in intraocular pressure between baseline and at ≥18 months; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Glaucoma follow-up unit employees closely adhered to the working protocol for the measurement of intraocular pressure, visual acuity and GDx (≥97.5% of all visits). Humphrey Field Analyzer examinations were not performed as frequently as prescribed by the working protocol, but more often than in the Usual Care group. In a small minority of patients that required back-referral, the protocol was disregarded, notably when criteria were only slightly exceeded. There was no statistically significant difference in changes in intraocular pressure between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.854). Patients were slightly more satisfied with the glaucoma follow-up unit employees than with the glaucoma specialists (scores: 8.56 vs. 8.40; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up closely observed its working protocol and patients preferred it slightly over the usual care provided by medical doctors. The glaucoma follow-up unit operated satisfactorily and might serve as a model for shared care strategies elsewhere.

Development of an instrument to analyze organizational characteristics in multidisciplinary care pathways; the case of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To analyze the organization of multidisciplinary care pathways such as colorectal cancer care, an instrument was developed based on a recently published framework that was earlier used in analyzing (monodisciplinary) specialist cataract care from a lean perspective. METHODS: The instrument was constructed using semi-structured interviews and direct observation of the colorectal care process based on a Rapid Plant Assessment. Six lean aspects that were earlier established that highly impact process design, were investigated: operational focus, autonomous work cell, physical lay-out of resources, multi-skilled team, pull planning and non-value adding activities. To test reliability, clarity and face validity of the instrument, a pilot study was performed in eight Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: In the pilot it proved feasible to apply the instrument and generate the intended information. The instrument consisted of 83 quantitative and 24 qualitative items. Examples of results show differences in operational focus, number of patient visits needed for diagnosis, numbers of staff involved with treatment, the implementation of protocols and utilization of one-stop-shops. Identification of waste and non-value adding activities may need further attention. Based on feedback from involved clinicians the face validity was acceptable and the results provided useful feedback- and benchmark data. The instrument proved to be reliable and valid for broader implementation in Dutch health care. The limited number of cases made statistical analysis not possible and further validation studies may shed better light on variation. CONCLUSIONS: This paper demonstrates the use of an instrument to analyze organizational characteristics in colorectal cancer care from a lean perspective. Wider use might help to identify best organizational practices for colorectal surgery. In larger series the instrument might be used for in-depth research into the relation between organization and patient outcomes. Although we found no reason to adapt the underlying framework, recommendations were made for further development to enable use in different tumor- and treatment modalities and in larger (international) samples that allow for more advanced statistical analysis. Waste from defective care or from wasted human potential will need further elaboration of the instrument.

Exploring the relation between process design and efficiency in high-volume cataract pathways from a lean thinking perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To compare process designs of three high-volume cataract pathways in a lean thinking framework and to explore how efficiency in terms of lead times, hospital visits and costs is related to process design. DESIGN: International retrospective comparative benchmark study with a mixed-method design. SETTING: Three eye hospitals in the UK, the USA and the Netherlands participated in this study. All are major international tertiary care and training centres in ophthalmology. PARTICIPANTS: Data on all patients who underwent first eye cataract surgery in 2006 were used. INTERVENTIONS: The study related six operational aspects of lean thinking in the process design to efficiency. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of lean aspects were operational focus, autonomous work cell, physical lay-out of resources, multi-skilled team, pull planning and elimination of wastes. Efficiency was measured with lead times (access time plus waiting time for surgery), hospital visits and direct costs. RESULTS: Operational focus was influenced by external circumstances leading to different orientations on efficiency. Pull planning with integrating activities in one-stop procedures conducted by multi-skilled nurses as well as eliminating wastes reduced both the number of hospital visits and costs. Short lead times were associated with the use of a general outpatient clinic and a high-volume cataract surgery clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The environmental context and operational focus primarily influenced process design of the cataract pathways. When pressed to further optimize their processes, hospitals can use these systematic benchmarking data to decrease the frequency of hospital visits, lead times and costs.

Evaluation of an international benchmarking initiative in nine eye hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking has become very popular among managers to improve quality in the private and public sector, but little is known about its applicability in international hospital settings. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of an international benchmarking initiative in eye hospitals. METHODOLOGY: To assess the applicability, an evaluation frame was constructed on the basis of a systematic literature review. The frame was applied longitudinally to a case study of nine eye hospitals that used a set of performance indicators for benchmarking. Document analysis, nine questionnaires, and 26 semistructured interviews with stakeholders in each hospital were used for qualitative analysis. FINDINGS: The evaluation frame consisted of four areas with key conditions for benchmarking: purposes of benchmarking, performance indicators, participating organizations, and performance management systems. This study showed that the international benchmarking between eye hospitals scarcely met these conditions. The used indicators were not incorporated in a performance management system in any of the hospitals. Despite the apparent homogeneity of the participants and the absence of competition, differences in ownership, governance structure, reimbursement, and market orientation made comparisons difficult. Benchmarking, however, stimulated learning and exchange of knowledge. It encouraged interaction and thereby learning on the tactical and operational levels, which is also an incentive to attract and motivate staff. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although international hospital benchmarking seems to be a rational process of sharing performance data, this case study showed that it is highly dependent on social processes and a learning environment. It can be useful for diagnostics, helping local hospitals to catalyze performance improvements.