Value based maternal and newborn care requires alignment of adequate resources with high value activities.

BACKGROUND: Evidence based practice has been associated with better quality of care in many situations, but it has not been able to address increasing need and demand in healthcare globally and stagnant or decreasing healthcare resources. Implementation of value-based healthcare could address many important challenges in health care systems worldwide. Scaling up exemplary high value care practices offers the potential to ensure values-driven maternal and newborn care for all women and babies. DISCUSSION: Increased use of healthcare interventions over the last century have been associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. However, over an optimum threshold, these are associated with increases in adverse effects and inappropriate use of scarce resources. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care framework provides an example of what value based maternity care might look like. To deliver value based maternal and newborn care, a system-level shift is needed, 'from fragmented care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all'. Ideally, resources would be allocated at population and individual level to ensure care is woman-centred instead of institution/ profession centred but oftentimes, the drivers for spending resources are 'the demands and beliefs of the acute sector'. We argue that decisions to allocate resources to high value activities, such as continuity of carer, need to be made at the macro level in the knowledge that these investments will relieve pressure on acute services while also ensuring the delivery of appropriate and high value care in the long run. To ensure that high value preventive and supportive care can be delivered, it is important that separate staff and money are allocated to, for example, models of continuity of carer to prevent shortages of resources due to rising demands of the acute services. To achieve value based maternal and newborn care, mechanisms are needed to ensure adequate resource allocation to high value maternity care activities that should be separate from the resource demands of acute maternity services. Funding arrangements should support, where wanted and needed, seamless movement of women and neonates between systems of care.

Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles.

BACKGROUND: Genomic screening has unique challenges which makes it difficult to easily implement on a wide scale. If the costs, benefits and tradeoffs of investing in genomic screening are not evaluated properly, there is a risk of wasting finite healthcare resources and also causing avoidable harm. MAIN TEXT: If healthcare professionals - including policy makers, payers and providers - wish to incorporate genomic screening into healthcare while minimizing waste, maximizing benefits, and considering results that matter to patients, using the principles of triple value (allocative, technical, and personal value) could help them to evaluate tough decisions and tradeoffs. Allocative value focuses on the optimal distribution of limited healthcare resources to maximize the health benefits to the entire population while also accounting for all the costs of care delivery. Technical value ensures that for any given condition, the right intervention is chosen and delivered in the right way. Various methods (e.g. ACCE, HTA, and Wilson and Jungner screening criteria) exist that can help identify appropriate genomic applications. Personal value incorporates preference based informed decision making to ensure that patients are informed about the benefits and harms of the choices available to them and to ensure they make choices based on their values and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Using triple value principles can help healthcare professionals make reasoned and tough judgements about benefits and tradeoffs when they are exploring the role genomic screening for chronic diseases could play in improving the health of their patients and populations.

Visualizing value for money in public health interventions.

Background: The Socio-Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR) has been developed for value for money analysis of health services through stakeholder workshops. This article reports on its application for prioritization of interventions within public health programmes. Methods: The STAR tool was used by identifying costs and service activity for interventions within commissioned public health programmes, with benefits estimated from the literature on economic evaluations in terms of costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs); consensus on how these QALY values applied to local services was obtained with local commissioners. Results: Local cost-effectiveness estimates could be made for some interventions. Methodological issues arose from gaps in the evidence base for other interventions, inability to closely match some performance monitoring data with interventions, and disparate time horizons of published QALY data. Practical adjustment for these issues included using population prevalences and utility states where intervention specific evidence was lacking, and subdivision of large contracts into specific intervention costs using staffing ratios. The STAR approach proved useful in informing commissioning decisions and understanding the relative value of local public health interventions. Conclusions: Further work is needed to improve robustness of the process and develop a visualization tool for use by public health departments.

It's a long shot, but it just might work! Perspectives on the future of medicine.

What does the future of medicine hold? We asked six researchers to share their most ambitious and optimistic views of the future, grounded in the present but looking out a decade or more from now to consider what's possible. They paint a picture of a connected and data-driven world in which patient value, patient feedback, and patient empowerment shape a continually learning system that ensures each patient's experience contributes to the improved outcome of every patient like them, whether it be through clinical trials, data from consumer devices, hacking their medical devices, or defining value in thoughtful new ways.

Strategies to reduce variation in the use of surgery.

Provision rates for surgery vary widely in relation to identifiable need, suggesting that reduction of this variation might be appropriate. The definition of unwarranted variation is difficult because the boundaries of acceptable practice are wide, and information about patient preference is lacking. Very little direct research evidence exists on the modification of variations in surgery rates, so inferences must be drawn from research on the alteration of overall rates. The available evidence has large gaps, which suggests that some proposed strategies produce only marginal change. Micro-level interventions target decision making that affects individuals, whereas macro-level interventions target health-care systems with the use of financial, regulatory, or incentivisation strategies. Financial and regulatory changes can have major effects on provision rates, but these effects are often complex and can include unintended adverse effects. The net effects of micro-level strategies (such as improvement of evidence and dissemination of evidence, and support for shared decision making) can be smaller, but better directed. Further research is needed to identify what level of variation in surgery rates is appropriate in a specific context, and how variation can be reduced where desirable.

Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership.

Empathic care benefits patients and practitioners, and empathy training for practitioners can enhance empathy. However, practitioners do not operate in a vacuum. For empathy to thrive, healthcare consultations must be situated in a nurturing milieu, guided by empathic, compassionate leaders. Empathy will be suppressed, or even reversed if practitioners are burned out and working in an unpleasant, under-resourced environment with increasingly poorly served and dissatisfied patients. Efforts to enhance empathy must therefore go beyond training practitioners to address system-level factors that foster empathy. These include patient education, cultivating empathic leadership, customer service training for reception staff, valuing cleaning and all ancillary staff, creating healing spaces, and using appropriate, efficiency saving technology to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare practitioners. We divide these elements into environmental factors, organisational factors, job factors, and individual characteristics.

The atlas of variation in healthcare Brazil: remarkable findings from a middle-income country.

BACKGROUND: Brazil's Universal Health System is the world's largest and covers every citizen without out-of-pocket costs. Nonetheless, healthcare inequities across regions have never been systematically evaluated. METHODS: We used government databases to compare healthcare resource utilization, outcomes, expenditure, and years of life lost between 2016 and 2019. The maps used patients' residences as reference and adjusted for age and private health insurance coverage. RESULTS: The Atlas shows that for several comparisons, there were no procedures in some regions, including primary coronary angioplasty, thrombolysis for stroke, bariatric surgery, and kidney transplant. Colonoscopy varied 1481.2-fold, asthma hospitalizations varied 257.5-fold, and mammograms varied 133.9-fold. Cesarean births ranged from 19.5% to 84.0%, and myocardial infarction and stroke case-fatalities were 1.1% to 33.7% and 5.0% to 39.0%, respectively. Higher private health insurance coverage in each region was associated with increased resource utilization in the public system in most comparisons. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that the SUS does not fulfill the Brazilian constitutional rights due to underutilization, overutilization, and access disparities. The Atlas outlines multiple opportunities to generate value in the SUS.

Broadening the concept of patient safety culture through value-based healthcare.

PURPOSE: Decision-makers are looking for innovative approaches to improve patient experience and outcomes with the finite resources available in healthcare. The concept of value-based healthcare has been proposed as one such approach. Since unsafe care hinders patient experience and contributes to waste, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how the value-based approach can help broaden the existing concept of patient safety culture and thus, improve patient safety and healthcare value. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In the arguments, the authors use the triple value model which consists of personal, technical and allocative value. These three aspects together promote healthcare in which the experience of care is improved through the involvement of patients, while also considering the optimal utilisation and allocation of finite healthcare resources. FINDINGS: While the idea that patient involvement should be integrated into patient safety culture has already been suggested, there is a lack of emphasis that economic considerations can play an important role as well. Patient safety should be perceived as an investment, thus, relevant questions need to be addressed such as how much resources should be invested into patient safety, how the finite resources should be allocated to maximise health benefits at a population level and how resources should be utilised to get the best cost-benefit ratio. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Thus far, both the importance of patient safety culture and value-based healthcare have been advocated; this paper emphasizes the need to consider these two approaches together.

[Brief introduction of population medicine and value-based healthcare].

Three healthcare revolutions and four medical paradigm shifts have had a profound impact on the development of healthcare system, which has greatly improved human health, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed hidden dangers and problems in the construction of the healthcare system. In this paper, we made a brief introduction of population medicine and value-based healthcare for the purpose of suggesting new ideas and directions for the future development of healthcare system.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.

The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients.

BACKGROUND: The recent emphasis on value-based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect. AIM: To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters. APPROACH: Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized. RESULTS: The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self-evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time-consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.