Cargando…
Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease
BACKGROUND: As process measures can be means to change practices, this article presents process measures that impact on outcome measures for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within value-based healthcare. METHODS: Desk research and observatio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31799447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000716 |
_version_ | 1783471745536098304 |
---|---|
author | Akmaz, Berdel Zipfel, Nina Bal, Roland A Rensing, Benno J W M Daeter, Edgar J van der Nat, Paul B |
author_facet | Akmaz, Berdel Zipfel, Nina Bal, Roland A Rensing, Benno J W M Daeter, Edgar J van der Nat, Paul B |
author_sort | Akmaz, Berdel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: As process measures can be means to change practices, this article presents process measures that impact on outcome measures for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within value-based healthcare. METHODS: Desk research and observations of patient trajectories were performed to map the processes involved in TAVR and SAVR. Semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (n=8) and patients (n=2) to explore which processes were most important in relation to a standard set of outcome measures that was already monitored. Additionally, open interviews (n=2) were held to prioritise results. A focus group was performed for validation of the formulated process measures. Numerical data for these measures was not collected. RESULTS: Process maps of the full cycle of care of TAVR and SAVR treatments in theory and in practice were developed. 28 processes were found important by interview participants due to their expected impact on patient-relevant outcomes. Seven processes were prioritised to be most important and were formulated into 12 process measures for both TAVR and SAVR: ‘Number of times that deficient information provision to SAVR patients causes negative outcomes’, ‘Type of TAVR/SAVR prosthesis’, ‘Brand of TAVR prosthesis’, ‘Number of times the frailty score of a TAVR/SAVR patient >75 years is measured’, ‘Time between TAVR/SAVR surgery indication and surgery’, ‘Number of times that anticoagulants are stopped within 3 days before surgery’, ‘Time in hours between TAVR/SAVR surgery and permanent pacemaker implantation’ and ‘Percentage of standardised pain measurements’. CONCLUSION: This study proposes an addition of select process measures to standard sets of outcome measures to improve healthcare quality. It illustrates a clear method for identifying process measures with impact on health outcomes in the future. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6863668 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68636682019-12-03 Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease Akmaz, Berdel Zipfel, Nina Bal, Roland A Rensing, Benno J W M Daeter, Edgar J van der Nat, Paul B BMJ Open Qual Original Research BACKGROUND: As process measures can be means to change practices, this article presents process measures that impact on outcome measures for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within value-based healthcare. METHODS: Desk research and observations of patient trajectories were performed to map the processes involved in TAVR and SAVR. Semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (n=8) and patients (n=2) to explore which processes were most important in relation to a standard set of outcome measures that was already monitored. Additionally, open interviews (n=2) were held to prioritise results. A focus group was performed for validation of the formulated process measures. Numerical data for these measures was not collected. RESULTS: Process maps of the full cycle of care of TAVR and SAVR treatments in theory and in practice were developed. 28 processes were found important by interview participants due to their expected impact on patient-relevant outcomes. Seven processes were prioritised to be most important and were formulated into 12 process measures for both TAVR and SAVR: ‘Number of times that deficient information provision to SAVR patients causes negative outcomes’, ‘Type of TAVR/SAVR prosthesis’, ‘Brand of TAVR prosthesis’, ‘Number of times the frailty score of a TAVR/SAVR patient >75 years is measured’, ‘Time between TAVR/SAVR surgery indication and surgery’, ‘Number of times that anticoagulants are stopped within 3 days before surgery’, ‘Time in hours between TAVR/SAVR surgery and permanent pacemaker implantation’ and ‘Percentage of standardised pain measurements’. CONCLUSION: This study proposes an addition of select process measures to standard sets of outcome measures to improve healthcare quality. It illustrates a clear method for identifying process measures with impact on health outcomes in the future. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6863668/ /pubmed/31799447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000716 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Akmaz, Berdel Zipfel, Nina Bal, Roland A Rensing, Benno J W M Daeter, Edgar J van der Nat, Paul B Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title | Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title_full | Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title_fullStr | Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title_full_unstemmed | Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title_short | Developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
title_sort | developing process measures in value-based healthcare: the case of aortic valve disease |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31799447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000716 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akmazberdel developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease AT zipfelnina developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease AT balrolanda developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease AT rensingbennojwm developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease AT daeteredgarj developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease AT vandernatpaulb developingprocessmeasuresinvaluebasedhealthcarethecaseofaorticvalvedisease |