Suchergebnisse

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. METHOD: We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in-depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key-informants. RESULTS: The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also-and especially-the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence-based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non-medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence-based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

Rationale, aims, and objectives This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. Method We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in-depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key-informants. Results The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also-and especially-the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. Conclusions Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence-based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non-medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence-based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. METHOD: We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in‐depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key‐informants. RESULTS: The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also—and especially—the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence‐based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non‐medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence‐based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

AbstractPeople with Down syndrome have complex health care needs which are not always fully met. Health care improvements are required to better meet these needs. Quality indicators are an important tool for improving health care. However, quality indicators for health care for people with Down syndrome are scarce. Existing quality indicators focus on medical (physical) needs or the clinical setting, even though it is acknowledged that quality measures should reflect the total of quality aspects relevant to the population at stake, which may encompass aspects beyond the medical domain. These aspects beyond the medical domain are the focus of the current paper, which aims to provide insight into the way people with Down syndrome live their lives, how health care may fit in, and how this may impact the development of quality indicators. The paper is based on data originating from interviews with people with Down syndrome and their parents as well as focus groups with support staff members working in assisted living facilities for people with intellectual disability. The data revealed a lot of variation in how people with Down syndrome live their lives. Nevertheless, we were able to identify 11 topics, which we grouped into three overarching themes: (1) Being different yet living a normal life; (2) Down syndrome‐(un)friendly society and services; and (3) family perspective. The variation in our data stresses the importance of health care that takes a person's life into account beyond the medical domain, as exemplified by the identified topics. Our findings also show that a good life is not merely depending on good health care supported by well‐defined quality indicators, but on (support in) all life domains.

AbstractBackgroundPeople with Down syndrome (PDS) have complex healthcare needs. Little is known about the quality of health care for PDS, let alone how it is appraised by PDS and their caregivers. This study explores the perspectives of PDS, their parents and support staff regarding quality in health care for PDS.MethodThe present authors conducted semi‐structured interviews with 18 PDS and 15 parents, and focus groups with 35 support staff members (of PDS residing in assisted living facilities) in the Netherlands.ResultsAccording to the participants, healthcare quality entails well‐coordinated health care aligned with other support and care systems, a person‐centred and holistic approach, including respect, trust and provider–patient communication adapted to the abilities of PDS.ConclusionsOur findings may be used to improve health care for PDS, and provide insight into how health care could match the specific needs of PDS.

When comparing health care providers, patient experience data are usually adjusted for case-mix associations to ensure fair comparisons. Previous studies in the United States showed that case-mix associations sometimes vary across health care providers. Such variation could indicate differential provider behavior for patient subgroups, in which case current adjustment techniques might be inappropriate. To see whether this variation is also apparent in a health care system different from the U.S. system, the authors analyzed Dutch patients' experiences with family practice care. Using multilevel random slope models, the associations between age, general health status, mental health status, education, sex, and ethnicity on one hand and reported experiences on the other hand were assessed across family practices. The authors found only five significant variances between case-mix coefficients, all for outcomes related to health care professionals' conduct. These findings correspond to previous U.S. findings, suggesting that the case-mix variations reported here and previously constitute a rather robust phenomenon.