Expert consensus on moving towards a value-based healthcare system in the Netherlands: a Delphi study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
While the uptake of value-based health care (VBHC) is remarkable, uncertainty prevails regarding the most important actions and practices in establishing a value-based healthcare system. In this paper, we generate expert consensus on the most important aspects of VBHC.Design
The Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on the most important practices in moving towards a value-based healthcare system.Setting and participants
A Dutch expert panel consisting of nine members participated in a two-round survey.Primary and secondary outcome measures
We developed 39 initial items based on the pioneering literature on VBHC and recent health policies in the Netherlands. Experts rated the importance of each item on a 4-point Likert scale. Experts could change items or add new ones as they saw fit. We retained items that were rated (very) important by ≥80% of the panel.Results
After two survey rounds, 32 items (72%) were included through expert consensus. Experts unanimously agree on the importance of shared decision-making, with this item uniquely obtaining the maximum score. Experts also reached consensus on the importance of outcome measurements, a focus on medical conditions, and full cycles of care. No consensus was reached on the importance of benchmarking.Conclusion
This paper provides new insight into the most important actions and practices for establishing a value-based healthcare system in the Netherlands. Interestingly, several of our findings contrast with the pioneering literature on VBHC. This raises the question whether VBHC's widespread international uptake indicates its actual implementation, or rather that the original concept primarily serves as an inspiring idea.
SUBMITTER: Steinmann G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8047988 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsConsensus regarding an optimal algorithm for endoscopic treatment of papillary adenomas has not been established. We aimed to assess the existing degree of consensus among international experts and develop further concordance by means of a Delphi process.MethodsFifty-two international experts in the field of endoscopic papillectomy were invited to participate. Data were collected between August and December 2019 using an online survey platform. Three rounds were conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts (31%) completed the full process, and consensus was achieved on 47 of the final 79 statements (59%). Diagnostic workup should include at least an upper endoscopy using a duodenoscope (100%) and biopsy sampling (94%). There should be selected use of additional abdominal imaging (75%-81%). Patients with (suspected) papillary malignancy or over 1 cm intraductal extension should be referred for surgical resection (76%). To prevent pancreatitis, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before resection (82%) and a pancreatic stent should be placed (100%). A biliary stent is indicated in case of ongoing bleeding from the papillary region (76%) or concerns for a (micro)perforation after resection (88%). Follow-up should be started 3 to 6 months after initial papillectomy and repeated every 6 to 12 months for at least 5 years (75%).ConclusionsThis is the first step in developing an international consensus-based algorithm for endoscopic management of papillary adenomas. Surprisingly, in many areas consensus could not be achieved. These aspects should be the focus of future studies.
| S-EPMC8878358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundValue-based healthcare (VBHC) is a conceptual framework to improve the value of healthcare by health, care-process and economic outcomes. Benchmarking should provide useful information to identify best practices and therefore a good instrument to improve quality across healthcare organizations. This paper aims to provide a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of an international VBHC benchmarking in breast cancer, with the ultimate aim of being used to share best practices with a data-driven approach among healthcare organizations from different health systems.MethodsIn the VOICE community-a European healthcare centre cluster intending to address VBHC from theory to practice-information on patient-reported, clinical-related, care-process-related and economic-related outcomes were collected. Patient archetypes were identified using clustering techniques and an indicator set following a modified Delphi was defined. Benchmarking was performed using regression models controlling for patient archetypes and socio-demographic characteristics.ResultsSix hundred and ninety patients from six healthcare centres were included. A set of 50 health, care-process and economic indicators was distilled for benchmarking. Statistically significant differences across sites have been found in most health outcomes, half of the care-process indicators, and all economic indicators, allowing for identifying the best and worst performers.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first international experience providing evidence to be used with VBHC benchmarking intention. Differences in indicators across healthcare centres should be used to identify best practices and improve healthcare quality following further research. Applied methods might help to move forward with VBHC benchmarking in other medical conditions.
| S-EPMC10843953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent research evidence challenges clinical decision-making when acupuncture is taken into consideration in the treatment of cognitive impairment (CI). Aiming to provide some viable recommendations for acupuncture practitioners in dealing with actual clinic issues, an expert consensus study was conducted.MethodsA clinical question investigation among 47 acupuncturists yielded 24 initial items. Subsequently, systematic reviews on acupuncture for CI were searched within three online databases. A panel of 30 authoritative experts were requested to respond with agreement, neutrality, or disagreement for each item. Consensus establishment was defined as the percentage of agreement on a given item >80%.ResultsFollowing a 2-round Delphi survey, there were 21 items reaching consensus and three items resulting in no consensus; of which 10 items reached 90∼100% agreement, and 80∼90% expert agreement was achieved for 11 items. These items could be roughly categorized into six domains: (1) therapeutic effects of acupuncture, (2) therapeutic principles, (3) acupoint selection and combination, (4) acupuncture parameters, (5) considerable combined therapies, and (6) possible adverse events.ConclusionWithout ready-made guidelines, this expert consensus may be conducive to guide acupuncturists in implementing clinical acupuncture practice for CI. Moreover, given the lack of high-quality research evidence and plenty of unresolved clinical issues in this field, it is of necessity to carry out more studies to better clarify the treatment algorithm.
| S-EPMC7732673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractClassification of musculoskeletal pain based on underlying pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain) is challenging. In the absence of a gold standard, verification of features that could aid in discrimination between these mechanisms in clinical practice and research depends on expert consensus. This Delphi expert consensus study aimed to: (1) identify features and assessment findings that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between no more than 2 categories and (2) develop a ranked list of candidate features that could potentially discriminate between pain mechanisms. A group of international experts were recruited based on their expertise in the field of pain. The Delphi process involved 2 rounds: round 1 assessed expert opinion on features that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between 2 (based on a 40% agreement threshold); and round 2 reviewed features that failed to reach consensus, evaluated additional features, and considered wording changes. Forty-nine international experts representing a wide range of disciplines participated. Consensus was reached for 196 of 292 features presented to the panel (clinical examination-134 features, quantitative sensory testing-34, imaging and diagnostic testing-14, and pain-type questionnaires-14). From the 196 features, consensus was reached for 76 features as unique to nociceptive (17), neuropathic (37), or nociplastic (22) pain mechanisms and 120 features as shared between pairs of pain mechanism categories (78 for neuropathic and nociplastic pain). This consensus study generated a list of potential candidate features that are likely to aid in discrimination between types of musculoskeletal pain.
| S-EPMC9294075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAssisted living (AL) is the largest provider of residential long-term care in the US, and the morbidity of AL residents has been rising. However, AL is not a health care setting, and concern has been growing about residents' medical and mental health needs. No guidance exists to inform this care.ObjectiveTo identify consensus recommendations for medical and mental health care in AL and determine whether they are pragmatic.Evidence reviewA Delphi consensus statement study was conducted in 2021; as a separate effort, the extent to which the recommendations are reflected in practice was examined in data obtained from 2016 to 2021 (prepandemic). In the separate effort, data were from a 7-state study (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas). The 19 Delphi panelists constituted nationally recognized experts in medical, nursing, and mental health needs of and care for older adults; dementia care; and AL and long-term care management, advocacy, regulation, and education. One invitee was unavailable and nominated an alternate. The primary outcome was identification of recommended practices based on consensus ratings of importance. Panelists rated 183 items regarding importance to care quality and feasibility.FindingsConsensus identified 43 recommendations in the areas of staff and staff training, nursing and related services, resident assessment and care planning, policies and practices, and medical and mental health clinicians and care. To determine the pragmatism of the recommendations, their prevalence was examined in the 7-state study and found that most were in practice. The items reflected the tenets of AL, the role of AL in providing dementia care, the need for pragmatism due to the diversity of AL, and workforce needs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this consensus statement, 43 recommendations important to medical and mental health care in AL were delineated that are highly pragmatic as a guide for practice and policy.
| S-EPMC10350914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antidote stocking represents a major challenge to hospitals all over the world, including Kuwait. In order to assist hospitals to reduce costs and improve patient care, an essential antidote list can be used as an initial foundation for securing sufficient antidote availability at healthcare institutions. The aim of our study is to generate a nationally relevant essential antidote list for emergency care hospitals in Kuwait using the e-Delphi method by establishing consensus through a multidisciplinary expert group of healthcare providers. An electronic survey with 47 essential antidotes was developed. The e-Delphi method was used, with three rounds of voting, to determine expert consensus on an essential antidote list for hospitals in Kuwait. A purposive sample of healthcare professionals from governmental and private hospitals were selected for this study (n = 30). Consensus was gained if ≥75% of the expert panel agreed on the inclusion of the antidote, without any strong disagreements. Round 1 of the e-Delphi resulted in 41 antidotes reaching consensus and seven new antidotes suggested by the expert panel. Round 2 had two antidotes (out of seven newly suggested ones) reaching consensus. Round 3 was a confirmatory round, where the expert group agreed on their previous rounds' opinions. This resulted in the development of an essential antidote list with 43 antidotes. The optimal approach for ensuring adequate availability of antidotes is continuous monitoring of local poisoning incidence and antidote requirements through collaborations between academic researchers and emergency care clinicians. The development of an essential antidote list, with expert consensus, is one of the initial steps in securing a foundation for appropriate provision of antidotes at all healthcare institutions. This is the first study that the authors are aware of that demonstrates that the e-Delphi technique can consolidate recommendations of experts in emergency medicine to provide a list of essential antidotes.
| S-EPMC9202922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHealth economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.MethodsA list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.Results62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.ConclusionsVia expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.
| S-EPMC8024512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden.ObjectivesTo identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective.MethodsHealth economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set.ResultsForty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules.ConclusionsThe consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.
| S-EPMC6021557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThere is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology.MethodsWe conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as "recommended" or "discouraged" if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled "acceptable" (neither recommended nor discouraged).ResultsSeventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14-30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15-36) and 40 (28-60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, "recommended" strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified "discouraged" strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were "acceptable".ConclusionsThis multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research.
| S-EPMC10234895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment.MethodsIn total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents.ResultsForty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy.Conclusion(s)Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.
| S-EPMC11236823 | biostudies-literature