Stakeholders barriers and facilitators for the implementation of a personalised digital care pathway: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: A prerequisite for patient-centredness in healthcare organisations is offering patients access to adequate health information, which fits their needs. A personalised digital care pathway (PDCP) is a tool that facilitates the provision of tailored and timely information. Despite its potential, barriers influence the implementation of digital tools in healthcare organisations. Therefore, we investigated the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the PDCP among stakeholders. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted to acquire insight into perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of a digital care pathway in three diverse patient groups. SETTING: This study is part of the PDCP research project in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit internal stakeholders (eg, healthcare professionals, employees of the supporting departments) and external stakeholders (eg, employees of the external PDCP supplier). In addition, existing semistructured interviews with patients involved in pilot implementation (n=24) were used to verify the findings. RESULTS: We conducted 25 semistructured interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Content analyses yielded four themes: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of the PDCP (eg, perceived usefulness); (2) characteristics of the individuals involved and the implementation process (eg, individuals express resistance to change); (3) organisational readiness (eg, lack of resources); and (4) collaboration within the organisation (eg, mutual communication, multidisciplinary codesign). The main barriers mentioned by patients were duration of first activation and necessity for up-to-date content. In addition, the most facilitating factor for patients was user-friendliness. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasise the importance of gaining insights into the various perspectives of stakeholder groups, including patients, regarding the implementation of the PDCP. The perceived barriers and facilitators can be used to improve the PDCP implementation plan and tailor the development and improvement of other digital patient communication tools.

A pragmatic approach for implementation of value-based healthcare in Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The emphasis on implementation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) has increased in the Dutch healthcare system. Yet, the translation of the theoretical principles of VBHC towards actual implementation in daily practice has been rarely described. Our aim is to present a pragmatic step-by-step approach for VBHC implementation, developed and applied in Amsterdam UMC, to share our key elements. The approach may inspire others and can be used as a template for implementing VBHC principles in other hospitals. METHODS: The local approach is developed in a major academic hospital in the Netherlands, based at two locations with 15,000 employees in total. Experience-based co-design is used, building on our learning experiences from implementing VBHC for 14 specific patient groups. The described steps and activities devolved from iterative and participative co-design sessions with various experienced stakeholders involved in the implementation of one or more VBHC pathways. RESULTS: The approach includes five phases; preparation, design (team introduction, outcome selection, action agenda), building (outcome set integration in daily practice), implementation (training, outcome registration and implementation) and the continuous improvement cycle. We described two cases for illustration of the approach; the Cleft Lip and Palate and the Chronic Kidney Disease patient groups. For a good start, involvement of a clinical leader as driving force, ensuring participation of patient representatives and sufficient resources are needed. CONCLUSION: We have experienced that several defining features of the development and implementation of this approach may have contributed to its completeness and applicability. Key elements for success have been organisational readiness and clinical leadership. In conclusion, the approach has provided a first step towards VBHC in our hospital. Further research is needed for evaluation of its effectiveness including impact on value for patients.

Outcome of initially nonoperative treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of initially nonoperative treatment with immediate appendectomy for simple appendicitis in children. METHODS: Between September 2012 and June 2014 children aged 7-17 years with a radiologically confirmed simple appendicitis were invited to participate in a multicentre prospective cohort study in which they were treated with an initially nonoperative treatment strategy; nonparticipants underwent immediate appendectomy. In October 2015, their rates of complications and subsequent appendectomies, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were assessed. RESULTS: In this period, 25 children were treated with an initially nonoperative treatment strategy and 19 with immediate appendectomy; median (range) follow-up was 25 (16-36) and 26 (17-34) months, respectively. The percentage [95%CI] of patients experiencing complications in the initially nonoperative group and the immediate appendectomy group was 12 [4-30]% and 11 [3-31]%, respectively. In total 6/25 children (24%) underwent an appendectomy; none of the 6 patients operated subsequently experienced any postappendectomy complications. Overall, HRQOL in the nonoperative treatment group was similar to that of healthy peers. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome of initially nonoperative treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children is similar to the outcome in those who undergo immediate appendectomy. Initially nonoperative management seems to be able to avoid appendectomy in 3 out of 4 children. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 (prospective comparative study). This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.