Collaborative models for the joint production of core health technology assessments: negative and positive aspects for the joint work of different European agencies.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is to make HTA agencies collaborate sharing methods and tools thus avoiding duplication of evaluative efforts and allowing resource savings. From 2010 to 2012, the activities of the network were carried out through EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 and Work Package 4 Strand B aimed at producing two Core HTAs with two main objectives: to test the Web based Core model and the collaborative working models. Our objective in this article is to give an historical record of the Work Package activities highlighting what worked and what did not in the collaboration of researchers' groups coming from different agencies. METHODS: A retrospective description of all the steps for the joint production of the two Core HTAs is provided starting from the first step of selecting technologies of common interest. Primary researchers' views on the whole process have been collected through a semi-structured telephonic interview supported by a questionnaire. Coordinators views were gathered during internal meetings and validated. RESULTS: Majority of respondents thought topic selection procedure was not clear and well managed. About collaborative models, small groups were seen to enable more exchange, whatever the model. According to coordinators, loss of expertise and experience during the production process, different languages, and novelty of the Online Tool were main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from this first experience in Joint Action 1 paved the path for the collaboration in Joint Action 2, as it allowed enhancements and changes in models of collaborations and coordination.

Changing doctors' behaviours: an educational program to disseminate a new clinical pathway for the hospital management of hip fractures in elderly patients in the Lazio Region, Italy.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Concerns with patient safety have increased interest in approaches to improving doctors' performance, yet dissemination of clinical guidelines and conventional continuing medical education have often failed. This study investigated the effects of an educational program based on reflection upon experience on the quality of care for patients with hip fracture in Lazio, Italy. METHODS: Five hospitals participated. The study consisted of the development of a clinical pathway, a preparatory phase and the educational intervention itself, which comprised a course followed by monthly audits with reflection on practice, guided by analysis of patients' charts. Data on the quality of care for patients with hip fracture were collected from the routine information system for the period before and after the intervention. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients who underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission (from 7% in 2006 to 26.4% in 2007) and a significant reduction in the average length of hospital stay (from 18.8 to 16.4 days). Some process indicators of quality of care were high after the intervention, though non-recommended practices were still routinely used (e.g. urinary catheterization in 72.2% of patients). There were differences in the changes when comparing hospitals. CONCLUSION: An educational intervention that combined the dissemination of a clinical pathway with external auditing geared to reflection upon practice was effective in promoting changes in doctors' behaviours. The persistence of non-recommended practices and the variation among hospitals indicate that multiple factors influence performance and affect the effectiveness of interventions.