Evaluating instruments for regulation of health care in the Netherlands

Tuijn, Saskia M.; Robben, Paul; Janssens, Frans; Bergh, Huub van den

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01431.x

Cited by 21 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inspector judgement has also been studied in the Netherlands. The Dutch study pointed out that not one single instrument could evaluate the complexity and multidimensional work of inspectors [34]. Relating these findings to our study, there seems to be evidence to support establishing arenas that allow for appropriate discussions between inspectors to improve reliability of their assessment but also to evaluate their own practice to ensure more equal weighting of factors in their assessment [15].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Strategy and practise of external inspection in healthcare services – a Norwegian comparative case study

Schaefer

Wiig

2017

Saf Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We could say that external inspections support improvement of healthcare services, but we know little about how. The aim of this study was to increase knowledge about how county governors, as external inspectorates of healthcare services, support and contribute to improvement through external inspections. Methods: This is a comparative case study where data is based on qualitative interviews and analysis of government documents. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with inspectors representing two different county governors in Norway. Data analysis was based on systematic text condensation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Strategy and practise of external inspection in healthcare services – a Norwegian comparative case study

Schaefer

Wiig

2017

Saf Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In cases of false positive judgements, incentives for improving the quality of care remain unjustly undone. Furthermore, accountability and transparency in regulation are restricted by reliability and validity issues [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing interrater variability and improving health care: a meta‐analytical review

Tuijn

Janssens

Robben

et al. 2011

Evaluation Clinical Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On average, although all types of interventions are effective, improving the diagnostic instrument seems to be the most effective. Especially when highly technical instruments were concerned, improvement proved to be very effective (β = 0.52). Because instrumental variables constitute a major source of error, improving the instrument is an important approach. However, this review offers solid arguments that can complement the literature and practice, with a focus on training the user of the instrument.

show abstract

“…This implies that when the unadjusted instrument is used, the assigned judgments are more lenient compared with the corporate judgments. Earlier research has confirmed this tendency towards false-positive judgments [28]. Based on the estimates of the variances we obtained from the results of the consensus meeting and adjusting the instrument, we explored the effect of increasing the number of inspectors who examined similar cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…First, earlier research showed that rating the ‘pressure ulcer’ criterion can be very difficult [24]. Second, the ‘professionalism of the staff’ criterion is a new one in the instrument and turned out to be hard to judge [28]. The experts evaluated the criteria on three dimensions: the clarity of the definition of the aspects of risks, the extent to which the aspects of risk cover situations in nursing homes and the scoring methodology.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled trial and before and after case study

Tuijn

Bergh

Robben

et al. 2014

Evaluation Clinical Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale, aims and objectivesWe examined the effect of two interventions on both the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments: adjusting the regulatory instrument and attending a consensus meeting.MethodWe adjusted the regulatory instrument. With a randomized controlled trial (RCT) we examined the effect of the adjustments we made to the instrument. In the consensus meeting inspectors discussed cases and had to reach consensus about the order of the cases. We used a before and after case study to assess the effect of the consensus meeting. We compared the judgments assigned in the RCT with the unadjusted instrument with the judgments assigned with the unadjusted instrument after the consensus meeting. Moreover we explored the effect of increasing the number of inspectors per regulatory visit based on the estimates of the two interventions.ResultsThe consensus meeting improved the agreement between inspectors; the variance between inspectors was smallest (0.03) and the reliability coefficient was highest (0.59). Validity is assessed by examining the relation between the assigned judgments and the corporate standard and expressed by a correlation coefficient. This coefficient was highest after the consensus meeting (0.48). Adjustment of the instrument did not increase reliability and validity coefficients.ConclusionsParticipating in a consensus meeting improved reliability and validity. Increasing the number of inspectors resulted in both higher reliability and validity values. Organizing consensus meetings and increasing the number of inspectors per regulatory visit seem to be valuable interventions for improving regulatory judgments.

show abstract

Evaluating instruments for regulation of health care in the Netherlands

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Strategy and practise of external inspection in healthcare services – a Norwegian comparative case study

Strategy and practise of external inspection in healthcare services – a Norwegian comparative case study

Reducing interrater variability and improving health care: a meta‐analytical review

Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled trial and before and after case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About