Abstract from article: The Dutch healthcare system has changed towards a system of regulated competition to contain costs and to improve efficiency and quality of care. This paper provides: (1) a brief as-is overview of the changes for primary care, based on explorative literature reviews; (2) provides noteworthy remarks as for the way primary and secondary healthcare is organised; (3) an example of an E-health portal illustrating implemented processes within the Dutch context and (4) a proposed research agenda on various e-health topics. Noteworthy remarks are: (1) government, insurer, healthcare provider and patient are main actors within the Dutch healthcare system; (2) general practitioners (GP’s) are gatekeepers to secondary and other care providers; (3) the illustrated portal with a patient oriented design, provides access to applications implemented at care providers resulting in increased electronic availability and increased patient satisfaction; (4) a variety of fragmented information systems at health care providers exists, which leaves room for standardisation and increased efficiency. We end with suggestions for future research.
BACKGROUND: The quality standards of the Dutch Society of Intensive Care require monitoring of the satisfaction of patient's relatives with respect to care. Currently, no suitable instrument is available in the Netherlands to measure this. This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire-based Consumer Quality Index 'Relatives in Intensive Care Unit' (CQI 'R-ICU'). The CQI 'R-ICU' measures the perceived quality of care from the perspective of patients' relatives, and identifies aspects of care that need improvement.METHODS: The CQI 'R-ICU' was developed using a mixed method design. Items were based on quality of care aspects from earlier studies and from focus group interviews with patients' relatives. The time period for the data collection of the psychometric evaluation was from October 2011 until July 2012. Relatives of adult intensive care patients in one university hospital and five general hospitals in the Netherlands were approached to participate. Psychometric evaluation included item analysis, inter-item analysis, and factor analysis.RESULTS: Twelve aspects were noted as being indicators of quality of care, and were subsequently selected for the questionnaire's vocabulary. The response rate of patients' relatives was 81% (n = 455). Quality of care was represented by two clusters, each showing a high reliability: 'Communication' (α = .80) and 'Participation' (α = .84). Relatives ranked the following aspects for quality of care as most important: no conflicting information, information from doctors and nurses is comprehensive, and health professionals take patients' relatives seriously. The least important care aspects were: need for contact with peers, nuisance, and contact with a spiritual counsellor. Aspects that needed the most urgent improvement (highest quality improvement scores) were: information about how relatives can contribute to the care of the patient, information about the use of meal-facilities in the hospital, and involvement in decision-making on the medical treatment of the patient.CONCLUSIONS: The CQI 'R-ICU' evaluates quality of care from the perspective of relatives of intensive care patients and provides practical information for quality assurance and improvement programs. The development and psychometric evaluation of the CQI 'R-ICU' led to a draft questionnaire, sufficient to justify further research into the reliability, validity, and the discriminative power of the questionnaire.
MULTIFILE
Despite the increased use of activity trackers, little is known about how they can be used in healthcare settings. This study aimed to support healthcare professionals and patients with embedding an activity tracker in the daily clinical practice of a specialized mental healthcare center and gaining knowledge about the implementation process. An action research design was used to let healthcare professionals and patients learn about how and when they can use an activity tracker. Data collection was performed in the specialized center with audio recordings of conversations during therapy, reflection sessions with the therapists, and semi-structured interviews with the patients. Analyses were performed by directed content analyses. Twenty-eight conversations during therapy, four reflection sessions, and eleven interviews were recorded. Both healthcare professionals and patients were positive about the use of activity trackers and experienced it as an added value. Therapists formulated exclusion criteria for patients, a flowchart on when to use the activity tracker, defined goals, and guidance on how to discuss (the data of) the activity tracker. The action research approach was helpful to allow therapists to learn and reflect with each other and embed the activity trackers into their clinical practice at a specialized mental healthcare center.
