Background: A lack of knowledge exists on real world hospital strategies that seek to improve quality, while reducing or containing costs. The aim of this study is to identify hospitals that have implemented such strategies and determine factors influencing the implementation. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EconLit for case studies on hospital-wide strategies aiming to increase quality and reduce costs. Additionally, grey literature databases, Google and selected websites were searched. We used inductive coding to identify factors relating to implementation of the strategies. Results: The literature search identified 4198 papers, of which our included 17 papers describe 19 case studies from five countries, mostly from the US. To accomplish their goals, hospitals use different management strategies, such as continuous quality improvement, clinical pathways, Lean, Six Sigma and value-based healthcare. Reported effects on both quality and costs are predominantly positive. Factors identified to be relevant for implementation were categorized in eleven themes: 1) strategy, 2) leadership, 3) engagement, 4) reorganization, 5) finances, 6) data and information technology (IT), 7) projects, 8) support, 9) skill development, 10) culture, and 11) communication. Recurring barriers for implementation are a lack of physician engagement, insufficient financial support, and poor data collection. Conclusion: Hospital strategies that explicitly aim to provide high quality care at low costs may be a promising option to bend the cost curve while improving quality. We found a limited amount of studies, and varying contexts across case studies. This underlines the importance of integrated evaluation research. When implementing a quality enhancing, cost reducing strategy, we recommend considering eleven conditions for successful implementation that we were able to derive from the literature.
BackgroundInsight into the frequency and seriousness of potentially unsafe situations may be the first step towards improving patient safety. Most patient safety attention has been paid to patient safety in hospitals. However, in many countries, patients receive most of their healthcare in primary care settings. There is little concrete information about patient safety in primary care in the Netherlands. The overall aim of this study was to provide insight into the current patient safety issues in Dutch general practices, out-of-hours primary care centres, general dental practices, midwifery practices, and allied healthcare practices. The objectives of this study are: to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients; to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals; and to provide insight into patient safety management in primary care practices.Design and methodsThe study consists of three parts: a retrospective patient record study of 1,000 records per practice type was conducted to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients (objective one); a prospective component concerns an incident-reporting study in each of the participating practices, during two successive weeks, to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals (objective two); to provide insight into patient safety management in Dutch primary care practices (objective three), we surveyed organizational and cultural items relating to patient safety. We analysed the incidents found in the retrospective patient record study and the prospective incident-reporting study by type of incident, causes (Eindhoven Classification Model), actual harm (severity-of-outcome domain of the International Taxonomy of Medical Errors in Primary Care), and probability of severe harm or death.DiscussionTo estimate the frequency of incidents was difficult. Much depended on the accuracy of the patient records and the professionals' consensus about which types of adverse events have to be recognized as incidents.
This study indicates that the assessment of professionals' perceptions may be complementary to observed safety incidents, but not linked to an objective measure of patient safety.
Background There have been contributions to quantify the volume of low-value care practices in the USA, Canada and Australia but we have no knowledge about the volume in Europe. The purpose of this study was to assess the volume and variation of Dutch low-value care practices. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study with data of a Dutch healthcare insurance company from general practioners (GP’s) and hospitals in the Netherlands from 2016. We used all billing claims made by healthcare providers of 3.5 million Dutch inhabitants. We studied Choosing Wisely recommendations in order to select low-value care practices. We used the percentage low-value care practices per hospital and number of low-value care practices per GP as outcomes. Results We assessed the volume of low-back imaging by GPs, screening of patients over 75 years for colorectal cancer and diagnosing varices with Doppler or Plethysmography. We found that 0.4% (range 0–7%) of the eligible patients received low-value screening for colorectal cancer and 8.0% (range 0–88%) of eligible patients received low-value diagnosing of varices. About 52.4% of the GPs ordered X-rays and 11.2% ordered magnetic resonance imagings of the lumbosacral spine. Most healthcare providers did not provide the measured low-value care practices. However, 1 in 12 GPs ordered at least one low-back X-ray a week. Conclusions The three Choosing Wisely recommendations showed a lot of practice variation; many healthcare providers did not order these low-value diagnostic tests; a minor part did order a substantial amount, low-back spine radiology in particular. These healthcare providers should start reducing these activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.