[A population-targeted approach to connect prevention, care and welfare: visualising the trend]. / Populatiegerichte aanpak voor verbinding van preventie, zorg en welzijn.

OBJECTIVE: To map initiatives in the Netherlands using a population-targeted approach to link prevention, care and welfare. DESIGN: Descriptive investigation, based on conversations and structured interviews. METHOD: We searched for initiatives in which providers in the areas of prevention, care and welfare together with health insurers and/or local authorities attempted to provide the 'triple aim': improving the health of the population and the quality of care, and managing costs. We found potential initiatives on the basis of interviews with key figures, project databases and congress programmes. We looked for additional information on websites and via contact persons to gather additional information to determine whether the initiative met the inclusion criteria. An initiative should link prevention, care and welfare with a minimum of three players actively pursuing a population-targeted goal through multiple interventions for a non-disease specific and district-transcending population. We described the goal, organisational structure, parties involved, activities and funding on the basis of interviews conducted in the period August-December 2015 with the managers of the initiatives included. RESULTS: We found 19 initiatives which met the criteria where there was experimentation with organisational forms, levels of participation, interventions and funding. It was noticeable that the interventions mostly concerned medical care. There was a lack of insight into the 'triple aim', mostly because data exchange between parties is generally difficult. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing number of initiatives that follow a population-targeted approach. Although the different parties strive to connect the three domains, they are still searching for an optimal collaboration, organisational form, data exchange and financing.

Implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics: facilitating and limiting factors.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that outpatient preoperative evaluation by anaesthetists increases quality of care and is cost-effective. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the factors that positively or negatively influence the implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics (OPE clinics). METHODS: After an extensive literature study and pilot interviews, we constructed written questionnaires that were sent to all Dutch hospitals. The respondents were members of the board of directors, members of the medical staff, anaesthetists, internists, and surgeons. RESULTS: Cooperation of anaesthetists was most frequently mentioned as facilitating factor for implementation of an OPE clinic across all medical specialists interviewed. Lack of finance was most frequently reported as limiting factor in all categories of hospitals (with a complete, partial, or no OPE clinic), but it was significantly more often reported in hospitals without OPE clinic (P<0.01). Perceived benefits and disadvantages, financial rewarding system, and organizational structure played a clear role in the implementation of OPE clinics. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of factors play a role in the implementation of an OPE clinic. Besides the more obvious ones, such as financing and cooperation of the professional groups involved, underlying factors, such as perceptions of the professionals involved, were found to be related to implementation of an OPE clinic. These underlying factors explain differences between different kinds of hospitals and between professional groups, regarding their resources and motivation to implement an OPE clinic.

The effect of national guidelines on the implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics in Dutch hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Preoperative evaluation performed by anaesthesiologists primarily aims to estimate the risk of perioperative complications and to create opportunities to optimize the patients' condition before surgery. In this study an inventory was made of the current practice of preoperative evaluation in Dutch hospitals. It was estimated how many hospitals had implemented an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic in 2004. Subsequently, current practice was compared with the results of a previous inventory (2000). It was also evaluated to what extent the guidelines of the Dutch Health Council and the Netherlands Society of Anaesthesiology were followed. METHODS: The study consisted of two phases. First, a literature research was performed and pilot interviews were constructed. The interviews were conducted face-to-face with anaesthesiologists in a sample of Dutch hospitals. Based on the results, written questionnaires were constructed. In the second phase these questionnaires were sent to all general and academic hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In 2004, 74% of the hospitals had an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic, compared with 50% in 2000. The percentage of hospitals with an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic available for all elective patients increased from 20% to 52%. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch guidelines on preoperative evaluation seem to have influenced current practice. An increase in the number of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics was seen after the guidelines were published. The implementation of an outpatient preoperative clinic seems to warrant that anaesthesiologists are carrying out the activities prescribed by the guidelines. Most hospitals without a clinic aim to implement one in the future.