SP0109 Quality of Care and Telemonitoring, the Added Value of ICT in Daily Care and Registries

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 29.1-29
Author(s):  
M.A. Van De Laar
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S73-S73
Author(s):  
Katya Sion ◽  
Hilde Verbeek ◽  
Gaby Odekerken-Schröder ◽  
Sandra Zwakhalen ◽  
Jos Schols ◽  
...  

Abstract This study aimed to develop a method to assess experienced quality of care (QoC) in nursing homes from the resident’s perspective. A narrative approach “Facilitating Care” (FC) was developed based on the INDEXQUAL framework of experienced QoC and a needs assessment. FC assesses experienced QoC by training care professionals to perform individual conversations with residents, their family and their professional caregivers (triads) in another organization than where they are employed. FC consists of three phases: 1) training, 2) data collection and registration, and 3) analysis and reporting of the results. In 2018, 16 care professionals were trained and performed 148 conversations (47 residents, 44 family members, 57 professional caregivers) in 8 different nursing homes. Evaluation showed that FC teaches helpful conversation techniques and provides valuable insights into residents’ experienced QoC. Whilst the process was considered time consuming, all participants emphasized the added value of taking time for FC conversations.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piet Calcoen ◽  
Wynand P. M. M. van de Ven

AbstractIn Belgium and France, physicians can charge a supplementary fee on top of the tariff set by the mandatory basic health insurance scheme. In both countries, the supplementary fee system is under pressure because of financial sustainability concerns and a lack of added value for the patient. Expenditure on supplementary fees is increasing much faster than total health expenditure. So far, measures taken to curb this trend have not been successful. For certain categories of physicians, supplementary fees represent one-third of total income. For patients, however, the added value of supplementary fees is not that clear. Supplementary fees can buy comfort and access to physicians who refuse to treat patients who are not willing to pay supplementary fees. Perceived quality of care plays an important role in patients’ willingness to pay supplementary fees. Today, there is no evidence that physicians who charge supplementary fees provide better quality of care than physicians who do not. However, linking supplementary fees to objectively proven quality of care and limiting access to top quality care to patients able and willing to pay supplementary fees might not be socially acceptable in many countries. Our conclusion is that supplementary physicians’ fees are not sustainable.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Etienne Minvielle ◽  
Aude Fourcade ◽  
Tom Ricketts ◽  
Mathias waelli

Abstract Background In recent years, there has been a growing interest in healthcare personalization and customization (e.g. personalized medicine and patient-centered care). While some positive impacts of these approaches have been reported, there has been a dearth of research on how these approaches are implemented and combined for healthcare delivery systems. Objective The present study undertakes a scoping review of current developments for delivering customized care, according to theoretical and practical guidelines for customization delivery approaches. Methods Article searches were initially conducted in November 2018, and updated in January 2019 and March 2019, according to Prisma guidelines. Two investigators independently searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PyscINFO, Web of Science, Science Direct and JSTOR, The search was focused on articles that included “care customization”, “personalized service and healthcare”, individualized care” and “targeting population” in the title or abstract. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Disagreements on study selection and data extraction were resolved by consensus and discussion between two reviewers. Results We identified 70 articles published between 2008 and 2019. Most of the articles (n = 43) were published from 2016 to 2019. Four categories of patient characteristics used for segmentation analysis emerged: clinical, psychosocial, service and costs. We observed they often coexisted with the most commonly described combinations, namely clinical, psychosocial and service. A minority of articles (n = 18) reported assessments on quality of care, experiences and costs. Finally, few articles (n= 6) formally defined a conceptual basis related to mass customization, whereas only half of articles used existing theories to guide their analysis or interpretation. Conclusions There is no common theory based strategy for providing customized care. In response, we have highlighted three areas for researchers and managers to advance the customized development concept in healthcare delivery systems: better define the content of the segmentation analysis and the intervention steps, demonstrate its added value, in particular its economic viability, and align the logics of action that underpin current efforts of customization. It would allow them to use customization to reduce costs and improve quality of care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-503
Author(s):  
David de Kam ◽  
Marianne van Bochove ◽  
Roland Bal

PurposeDespite the continuation of hospital mergers in many western countries, it is uncertain if and how hospital mergers impact the quality of care. This poses challenges for the regulation of mergers. The purpose of this paper is to understand: how regulators and hospitals frame the impact of merging on the quality and safety of care and how hospital mergers might be regulated, given their uncertain impact on quality and safety of care.Design/methodology/approachThis paper studies the regulation of hospital mergers in The Netherlands. In a qualitative study design, it draws on 30 semi-structured interviews with inspectors from the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (Inspectorate) and respondents from three hospitals that merged between 2013 and 2015. This paper draws from literature on process-based regulation to understand how regulators can monitor hospital mergers.FindingsThis paper finds that inspectors and hospital respondents frame the process of merging as potentially disruptive to daily care practices. While inspectors emphasise the dangers of merging, hospital respondents report how merging stimulated them to reflect on their care practices and how it afforded learning between hospitals. Although the Inspectorate considers mergers a risk to quality of care, their regulatory practices are hesitant.Originality/valueThis qualitative study sheds light on how merging might affect key hospital processes and daily care practices. It offers opportunities for the regulation of hospital mergers that acknowledges rather than aims to dispel the uncertain and potentially ambiguous impact of mergers on quality and safety of care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 11-11
Author(s):  
M.-P. Pomey ◽  
O Fortin ◽  
J Arsenault ◽  
V Lahaie ◽  
M.-A. Danino

ASHA Leader ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Dennis Hampton
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 229-229
Author(s):  
David C. Miller ◽  
John M. Hollingsworth ◽  
Khaled S. Hafez ◽  
Stephanie Daignault ◽  
Brent K. Hollenbeck

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document