No abstract

Choosing Wisely (CW) campaigns globally have focused attention on the need to reduce low-value care, which can represent up to 30% of the costs of healthcare. Despite early enthusiasm for the CW initiative, few large-scale changes in rates of low-value care have been reported since the launch of these campaigns. Recent commentaries suggest that the focus of the campaign should be on implementation of evidence-based strategies to effectively reduce low-value care. This paper describes the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework (CWDIF), a novel framework that builds on previous work in the field of implementation science and proposes a comprehensive approach to systematically reduce low-value care in both hospital and community settings and advance the science of de-implementation.The CWDIF consists of five phases: Phase 0, identification of potential areas of low-value healthcare; Phase 1, identification of local priorities for implementation of CW recommendations; Phase 2, identification of barriers to implementing CW recommendations and potential interventions to overcome these; Phase 3, rigorous evaluations of CW implementation programmes; Phase 4, spread of effective CW implementation programmes. We provide a worked example of applying the CWDIF to develop and evaluate an implementation programme to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing in healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgeries and to further develop the evidence base to reduce low-value care.

BackgroundInsight into the quality of health care is important for any stakeholder including patients, professionals, and governments. In light of a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient’s perspective, which is commonly done with surveys or focus groups. Unfortunately, these “traditional” methods have significant limitations that include social desirability bias, a time lag between experience and measurement, and difficulty reaching large groups of people. Information on social media could be of value to overcoming these limitations, since these new media are easy to use and are used by the majority of the population. Furthermore, an increasing number of people share health care experiences online or rate the quality of their health care provider on physician rating sites. The question is whether this information is relevant to determining or predicting the quality of health care.ObjectiveThe goal of our research was to systematically analyze the relation between information shared on social media and quality of care.MethodsWe performed a scoping review with the following goals: (1) to map the literature on the association between social media and quality of care, (2) to identify different mechanisms of this relationship, and (3) to determine a more detailed agenda for this relatively new research area. A recognized scoping review methodology was used. We developed a search strategy based on four themes: social media, patient experience, quality, and health care. Four online scientific databases were searched, articles were screened, and data extracted. Results related to the research question were described and categorized according to type of social media. Furthermore, national and international stakeholders were consulted throughout the study, to discuss and interpret results.ResultsTwenty-nine articles were included, of which 21 were concerned with health care rating sites. Several studies indicate a relationship between information on social media and quality of health care. However, some drawbacks exist, especially regarding the use of rating sites. For example, since rating is anonymous, rating values are not risk adjusted and therefore vulnerable to fraud. Also, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population.ConclusionsSocial media and particularly rating sites are an interesting new source of information about quality of care from the patient’s perspective. This new source should be used to complement traditional methods, since measuring quality of care via social media has other, but not less serious, limitations. Future research should explore whether social media are suitable in practice for patients, health insurers, and governments to help them judge the quality performance of professionals and organizations.

Background Patients who undergo primary Total Knee Replacement surgery (TKR) are often discharged within 1-3 days after surgery. With this relatively short length of hospital stay, a patient’s self-management is a crucial factor in optimizing the outcome of their treatment. In the case of TKR, self-management primarily involves adequate pain management, followed by physiotherapy exercises and daily self-care activities. Patients are educated on all these topics by hospital staff upon discharge from the hospital but often struggle to comprehend this information due to its quantity, complexity, and the passive mode of communication used to convey it. Objective This study primarily aims to determine whether actively educating TKR patients with timely, day-to-day postoperative care information through an app could lead to a decrease in their level of pain compared to those who only receive standard information about their recovery through the app. In addition, physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and daily self-care activities, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption were also assessed. Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed in five Dutch hospitals. In total, 213 patients who had undergone elective, primary, unilateral TKR participated. All patients had access to an app for their smartphone and tablet to guide them after discharge. The intervention group could unlock day-to-day information by entering a personal code. The control group only received weekly, basic information. Primary (level of pain) and secondary outcomes (physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and activities of daily self-care, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption) were measured using self-reported online questionnaires. All outcomes were measured weekly in the four weeks after discharge, except for physical functioning and quality of life, which were measured at baseline and at four weeks after discharge. Data was analyzed using Student t tests, chi-square tests, and linear mixed models for repeated measures. Results In total, 114 patients were enrolled in the intervention group (IG) and 99 in the control group (CG). Four weeks after discharge, patients in the IG performed significantly better than patients in the CG on all dimensions of pain: pain at rest (mean 3.45 vs mean 4.59; P=.001), pain during activity (mean 3.99 vs mean 5.08; P<.001) and pain at night (mean 4.18 vs mean 5.21; P=.003). Additionally, significant differences were demonstrated in favor of the intervention group for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions In the four weeks following TKR, the active and day-to-day education of patients via the app significantly decreased their level of pain and improved their physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and activities of daily self-care, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption compared to standard patient education. Given the rising number of TKR patients and the increased emphasis on self-management, we suggest using an app with timely postoperative care education as a standard part of care. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR7182; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6992

Aim of the studyTo use the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR), as a tool for Dutch hospitals to analyse their death rates by comparing their risk-adjusted mortality with the national average.MethodThe method uses routine administrative databases that are available nationally in The Netherlands—the National Medical Registration dataset for the years 2005–2007. Diagnostic groups that led to 80% of hospital deaths were included in the analysis. The method adjusts for a number of case-mix factors per diagnostic group determined through a logistic regression modelling process.ResultsIn The Netherlands, the case-mix factors are primary diagnosis, age, sex, urgency of admission, length of stay, comorbidity (Charlson Index), social deprivation, source of referral and month of admission. The Dutch HSMR model performs well at predicting a patient's risk of death as measured by a c statistic of the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91. The ratio of the HSMR of the Dutch hospital with the highest value in 2005–2007 is 2.3 times the HSMR of the hospital with the lowest value.DiscussionOverall hospital HSMRs and mortality at individual diagnostic group level can be monitored using statistical process control charts to give an early warning of possible problems with quality of care. The use of routine data in a standardised and robust model can be of value as a starting point for improvement of Dutch hospital outcomes. HSMRs have been calculated for several other countries.

BackgroundOver the last decades, the patient perspective on health care quality has been unconditionally integrated into quality management. For several years now, patient rating sites have been rapidly gaining attention. These offer a new approach toward hearing the patient’s perspective on the quality of health care.ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to explore whether and how patient reviews of hospitals, as reported on rating sites, have the potential to contribute to health care inspector’s daily supervision of hospital care.MethodsGiven the unexplored nature of the topic, an interview study among hospital inspectors was designed in the Netherlands. We performed 2 rounds of interviews with 10 senior inspectors, addressing their use and their judgment on the relevance of review data from a rating site.ResultsAll 10 Dutch senior hospital inspectors participated in this research. The inspectors initially showed some reluctance to use the major patient rating site in their daily supervision. This was mainly because of objections such as worries about how representative they are, subjectivity, and doubts about the relevance of patient reviews for supervision. However, confrontation with, and assessment of, negative reviews by the inspectors resulted in 23% of the reviews being deemed relevant for risk identification. Most inspectors were cautiously positive about the contribution of the reviews to their risk identification.ConclusionsPatient rating sites may be of value to the risk-based supervision of hospital care carried out by the Health Care Inspectorate. Health care inspectors do have several objections against the use of patient rating sites for daily supervision. However, when they are presented with texts of negative reviews from a hospital under their supervision, it appears that most inspectors consider it as an additional source of information to detect poor quality of care. Still, it should always be accompanied and verified by other quality and safety indicators. More research on the value and usability of patient rating sites in daily hospital supervision and other health settings is needed.

Background The introduction of health information technology (HIT) has drastically changed health care organizations and the way health care professionals work. Some health care professionals have trouble coping efficiently with the demands of HIT and the personal and professional changes it requires. Lagging in digital knowledge and skills hampers health care professionals from adhering to professional standards regarding the use of HIT and may cause professional performance problems, especially in the older professional population. It is important to gain more insight into the reasons and motivations behind the technology issues experienced by these professionals, as well as to explore what could be done to solve them. Objective Our primary research objective was to identify factors that influence the adoption of HIT in a sample of nurses who describe themselves as digitally lagging behind the majority of their colleagues in their workplaces. Furthermore, we aimed to formulate recommendations for practice and leadership on how to help and guide these nurses through ongoing digital transformations in their health care work settings. Methods In a Dutch university medical center, 10 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were performed with registered nurses (RN). Ammenwerth’s FITT-framework (fit between the Individual, Task, and Technology) was used to guide the interview topic list and to formulate themes to explore. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data. The FITT-framework was also used to further interpret and clarify the interview findings. Results Analyses of the interview data uncovered 5 main categories and 12 subthemes. The main categories were: (1) experience with digital working, (2) perception and meaning, (3) barriers, (4) facilitators, and (5) future perspectives. All participants used electronic devices and digital systems, including the electronic health record. The latter was experienced by some as user-unfriendly, time-consuming, and not supportive in daily professional practice. Most of the interviewees described digital working as “no fun at all,” “working in a fake world,” “stressful,” and “annoying.” There was a lack of general digital knowledge and little or no formal basic digital training or education. A negative attitude toward computer use and a lack of digital skills contributed to feelings of increased incompetency and postponement or avoidance of the use of HIT, both privately and professionally. Learning conditions of digital training and education did not meet personal learning needs and learning styles. A positive impact was seen in the work environment when colleagues and nurse managers were aware and sensitive to the difficulties participants experienced in developing digital skills, and when there was continuous training on the job and peer support from digitally savvy colleagues. The availability of a digital play environment combined with learning on the job and support of knowledgeable peers was experienced as helpful and motivating by participants. Conclusions Nurses who are digitally lagging often have had insufficient and ineffective digital education. This leads to stress, frustration, feelings of incompetency, and postponement or avoidance of HIT use. A digital training approach tailored to the learning needs and styles of these nurses is needed, as well as an on-the-job training structure and adequate peer support. Hospital management and nurse leadership should be informed about the importance of the fit between technology, task, and the individual for adequate adoption of HIT.

BackgroundIn the Netherlands, the health care system and related information technology landscape are fragmented. Recently, hospitals have started to launch patient portals. It is not clear how these portals are used by patients and their health care providers (HCPs).ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the adoption, use, usability, and usefulness of a recently introduced patient portal in an academic hospital to learn lessons for the implementation of patient portals in a fragmented health care system.MethodsA mixed methods study design was used. In the quantitative study arm, characteristics of patients who used the portal were analyzed, in addition to the utilization of the different functionalities of the portal. In the qualitative study arms, think-aloud observations were made to explore usability. Focus group discussions were conducted among patients and HCPs of the dermatology and ophthalmology outpatient departments. Thematic content analysis of qualitative data was carried out and overarching themes were identified using a framework analysis.ResultsOne year after the introduction of the portal, 24,514 patients, 13.49% of all patients who visited the hospital, had logged in to the portal. Adoption of the portal was associated with the age group 45 to 75 years, a higher socioeconomic status, and having at least one medical diagnosis. Overarching themes from the qualitative analyses were (1) usability and user-friendliness of the portal, (2) HCP-patient communication through the portal, (3) usefulness of the information that can be accessed through the portal, (4) integration of the portal in care and work processes, and (5) HCP and patient roles and relationships.ConclusionsOne year after the introduction of the patient portal, patients and HCPs who used the portal recognized the potential of the portal to engage patients in their care processes, facilitate patient-HCP communication, and increase patient convenience. Uncertainties among patients and HCPs about how to use the messaging functionality and limited integration of the portal in care and work processes are likely to have limited portal use and usefulness.