Why real world outcome information is indispensable in making treatment decisions for multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: A next step in value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to use outcome information (OI) to inform patients about (personalized) outcomes of care in order to support decision-making processes. We aimed to explore multiple myeloma (MM) patients' and caregivers' views on communication of OI and (shared) decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Focus groups with MM patients and caregivers. Main topics were experiences and needs with information provision, communication, decision-making, and use of OI. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in an iterative process by two researchers using open coding. Member checks were performed. RESULTS: Two focus groups were held with 11 patients (91% male, M=71 years old) and 10 caregivers (89% partners). Information needs were different per moment in the disease trajectory and purpose. Patients were implicitly involved in decisions, but they were not always aware of options and no active weighing of values took place. Outcome information was mostly provided on an individual level, to monitor disease progression and initiate decisions about the need for changes in ongoing treatment regimens (follow-up treatment lines). Patients appreciated the current process of information provision and decision-making, but prefer more option awareness, a bigger role in decision-making and more OI to 1) weigh outcomes for decision-making; 2) get insight in their care trajectory; and 3) compare with other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were satisfied with information provision and decision-making, but they were only implicitly involved in decisions. Real world OI derived from VBHC improvement cycles for MM may fulfil MM patients' and caregivers' information needs and support treatment decision-making.

Five years' experience with value-based quality improvement teams: the key factors to a successful implementation in hospital care.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, value-based healthcare (VBHC) has become one of the most accepted concepts for fixing the 'broken' healthcare systems. Numerous hospitals have embraced VBHC and are trying to implement value-based quality improvement (VBQI) into their practice. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how to practically implement VBHC and organizations differ in their approach. The aim of this study was to explore the main factors that were experienced as hindering and/or supporting in the implementation of VBQI teams in hospital care. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured interviews with 43 members of eight VBQI teams in a large Dutch top-clinical teaching hospital. Participants included physicians, physician assistants, nurses, VBHC project leaders, managers, social workers, researchers and paramedics. Interview grids were structured according to the RE-AIM model (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance). A thematic content analysis with open coding was used to identify emerging (sub)themes. RESULTS: We identified nine main factors divided over three domains (organization, culture and practice) that determined whether the implementation of VBQI teams was successful or not: 1). Practical organization of value-based quality improvement teams, 2). Organizational structure 3). Integration of VBHC with existing quality improvement approaches and research 4). Adoption and knowledge of the VBHC concept in the hospital 5). Multidisciplinary engagement 6). Medical leadership 7). Goal setting and selecting quality improvement initiatives 8). Long-cycle benchmarking and short-cycle feedback 9). Availability of outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study goes beyond the general VBHC theory and provides healthcare providers with more detailed knowledge on how to practically implement value-based quality improvement in a hospital care setting. Factors in the 'organization' and 'practice' domain were mentioned in the strategic value agenda of Porter and Lee. Though, this study provides more practical insight in these two domains. Factors in the 'culture' domain were not mentioned in the strategic value agenda and have not yet been thoroughly researched before.

Mapping the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare in the 15 years following its introduction (2006-2021): a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically map the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare (VBHC), and to identify research gaps. DESIGN: A scoping review with an additional cited reference search was conducted, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: The search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles mentioned VBHC or value with reference to the work of Porter or provided a definition of VBHC or value. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted using a data extraction form. Two independent reviewers double extracted data from 10% of the articles. Data of the remaining articles (90%) were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The strategic agenda of Porter and Lee was used to categorise the included articles. RESULTS: The searches yielded a total of 27,931 articles, of which 1,242 were analysed. Most articles were published in North America. Most articles described an application of VBHC by measuring outcomes and costs (agenda item 2). The other agenda items were far less frequently described or implemented. Most of these articles were conceptual, meaning that nothing was actually changed or implemented. CONCLUSION: The number of publications increased steadily after the introduction of VBHC in 2006. Almost one-fifth of the articles could not be categorised in one of the items of the strategic agenda, which may lead to the conclusion that the current strategic agenda could be extended. In addition, a practical roadmap or guideline to implement VBHC is still lacking. Future research could fill this gap by specifically studying the effectiveness of VBHC in day-to-day clinical practice.