Patient perspectives on consequences of resection for colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is diagnosed in approximately 500,000 patients each year in Europe, leading to a high number of patients having to cope with the consequences of resection for colorectal cancer. As treatment options tend to grow, more information on the effects of these treatments is needed to engage in shared decision-making. This study aims to explore the impact of resection for colorectal cancer on patients' daily life. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent an oncological colorectal resection between 2018 and 2021 were selected. Purposeful sampling was used to include patients who differed in age, comorbidity conditions, types of (neo)adjuvant therapy, postoperative complications and the presence/absence of a stoma. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, guided by a topic guide. Interviews were fully transcribed and subsequently thematically analysed using the framework approach. Analyses were carried out using the following predefined themes: (1) daily life and activities; (2) psychological functioning; (3) social functioning; (4) sexual functioning; and (5) healthcare experiences. RESULTS: Sixteen patients with a follow-up period of between 0.6 and 4.4 years after surgery were included in this study. Participants reported several challenges experienced because of poor bowel function, a stoma, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, fear of recurrence and sexual dysfunction. However, they reported these as not interfering much with daily life. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer treatment leads to several challenges and treatment-related health deficits. This is often not recognized by generic patient-reported outcome measures, but the findings on treatment-related health deficits presented in this study contain valuable insights which might contribute to improving colorectal cancer care, shared decision making and value-based health care.

Relational coordination in value-based health care.

BACKGROUND: An important element of value-based health care (VBHC) is interprofessional collaboration in integrated practice units (IPUs) for the delivery of the complete cycle of care. High levels of interprofessional collaboration between clinical and nonclinical staff in IPUs are assumed rather than proven. Factors that may stimulate interprofessional collaboration in the context of VBHC are underresearched. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine relational coordination (RC) in VBHC and its antecedents. APPROACH: A questionnaire was used to examine the association of both team practices and organizational conditions with interprofessional collaboration in IPUs. Gittell's Relational Coordination Survey was drawn upon to measure interprofessional collaboration by capturing the relational dynamics in coordinated working. The questionnaire also included measures of team practices (team meetings and boundary spanning behavior) and organizational conditions (task interdependence and time constraints). RESULTS: The number of different professional groups participating in team meetings is positively associated with RC in IPUs. Boundary spanning behavior, task interdependence, and time constraints are not associated with RC. CONCLUSIONS: In IPUs, the diversity within interprofessional team meetings is important for establishing high-quality communication and relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Hospital managers should prioritize facilitating and encouraging shared meetings to enhance RC levels among professional groups in IPUs.

The implementation of value-based healthcare: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify and summarize how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is conceptualized in the literature and implemented in hospitals. Furthermore, an overview was created of the effects of both the implementation of VBHC and the implementation strategies used. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching online databases for articles published between January 2006 and February 2021. Empirical as well as non-empirical articles were included. RESULTS: 1729 publications were screened and 62 were used for data extraction. The majority of the articles did not specify a conceptualization of VBHC, but only conceptualized the goals of VBHC or the concept of value. Most hospitals implemented only one or two components of VBHC, mainly the measurement of outcomes and costs or Integrated Practice Units (IPUs). Few studies examined effects. Implementation strategies were described rarely, and were evaluated even less. CONCLUSIONS: VBHC has a high level of interpretative variability and a common conceptualization of VBHC is therefore urgently needed. VBHC was proposed as a shift in healthcare management entailing six reinforcing steps, but hospitals have not implemented VBHC as an integrative strategy. VBHC implementation and effectiveness could benefit from the interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare and management science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/jt4u7/ (OSF | The implementation of Value-Based Healthcare: a Scoping Review).

Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care. DESIGN: A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used. RESULTS: We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Differing Professional Perspectives on the Interprofessional Collaboration in IPUs: A Mixed-methods Study.

Introduction: An important aspect of Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) is providing the full cycle of care for a specific medical condition through interprofessional collaboration. This requires employees from diverse professional backgrounds to interact, but there is limited knowledge on how professionals perceive such interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to provide insight into how different professionals perceive Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) composition and what factors influence the quality of interprofessional collaboration within IPUs. Methods: A survey was administered to employees from different professional backgrounds (medical specialists, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative employees) working in IPUs to assess their perception of the composition of their IPU and the quality of the interactions. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the findings of the survey. Results: Medical specialists and nurses were most frequently considered to be part of an IPU and indicated that they have high quality interactions. Allied health professionals were less often considered part of the team by all other professional groups and all report low quality interaction with this group. The extent to which a professional group is perceived as a team member depends on their visibility, involvement in the treatment of the patient, and shared interest. Differences in the quality of interprofessional collaboration are influenced by organizational structures, knowledge of each other's expertise, and by ways of communication. Conclusions: In VBHC, there seems to be a lack of common perception of an IPU's composition and a failure to always achieve high quality interprofessional collaboration. Given the importance of interprofessional collaboration in VBHC, effort should be invested in achieving a shared understanding and improved collaboration.