Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Evaluating a Dutch cardiology primary care plus intervention on the Triple Aim outcomes: study design of a practice-based quantitative and qualitative research

Authors: Tessa C.C. Quanjel, Marieke D. Spreeuwenberg, Jeroen N. Struijs, Caroline A. Baan, Dirk Ruwaard

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In an attempt to deal with the pressures on the health-care system and to guarantee sustainability, changes are needed. This study focuses on a cardiology primary care plus intervention. Primary care plus (PC+) is a new health-care delivery model focused on substitution of specialist care in the hospital setting with specialist care in the primary care setting. The intervention consists of a cardiology PC+ centre in which cardiologists, supported by other health-care professionals, provide consultations in a primary care setting. The PC+ centre aims to improve the health of the population and quality of care as experienced by patients, and reduce the number of referrals to hospital-based outpatient specialist care in order to reduce health-care costs. These aims reflect the Triple Aim principle. Hence, the objectives of the study are to evaluate the cardiology PC+ centre in terms of the Triple Aim outcomes and to evaluate the process of the introduction of PC+.

Methods/Design

The study is a practice-based, quantitative study with a longitudinal observational design, and an additional qualitative study to supplement, interpret and improve the quantitative study. The study population of the quantitative part will consist of adult patients (≥18 years) with non-acute and low-complexity cardiology-related health complaints, who will be referred to the cardiology PC+ centre (intervention group) or hospital-based outpatient cardiology care (control group). All eligible patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at three different time points consisting of questions about their demographics, health status and experience of care. Additionally, quantitative data will be collected about health-care utilization and related health-care costs at the PC+ centre and the hospital. The qualitative part, consisting of semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and observations, is designed to evaluate the process as well as to amplify, clarify and explain quantitative results.

Conclusions

This study will evaluate a cardiology PC+ centre using quantitative and supplementary qualitative methods. The findings of both sub-studies will fill a gap in knowledge about the effects of PC+ and in particular whether PC+ is able to pursue the Triple Aim outcomes.

Trial registration

NTR6629 (Data registered: 25-08-2017) (registered retrospectively).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. United States: Harvard Business Press; 2006.
2.
Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER). Naar een kwalitatief goede, toegankelijke en betaalbare zorg: Een tussenadvies op hoofdlijnen. Den Haag: SER; 2012.
3.
van Ewijk C, van der Horst A, Besseling P. Toekomst voor de zorg. Den Haag: CPB; 2013.
4.
Morgan D, Astolfi R. Financial impact of the GFC: health care spending across the OECD. Health Econ Policy Law. 2015;10(1):7–19.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Peiro S, Maynard A. Variations in health care delivery within the European Union. Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(1):1–2.CrossRef
6.
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRef
7.
Bisognano M, Kenney C. Pursuing the triple aim: seven innovators show the way to better care, better health, and lower costs. United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
8.
Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports (MHWS). Naar beter betaalbare zorg. In: Rapport taskforce Beheersing Zorguitgaven. Den Haag: MHWS; 2012.
9.
de Bakker D, Raams J, Schut E, Vrijhoef B, de Wildt JE. Integrale Bekostiging: Werk in uitvoering. In. Den Haag: Evaluatiecommissie Integrale Bekostiging; 2012.
10.
Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit (NZa). Advies Substitutie: Huisartsenzorg en ziekenhuiszorg op de juiste plek. Utrecht: NZa; 2012.
11.
Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports (MHWS). Strategische kennisagenda 2020. Den Haag: MHWS; 2012.
12.
Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER). Naar een kwalitatief goede, toegankelijke en betaalbare zorg: een tussentijds advies op hoofdlijnen. Den Haag: SER; 2012.
13.
Struijs JN, Drewes HW, Heijink R, Baan CA. How to evaluate population management? Transforming the care continuum alliance population health guide toward a broadly applicable analytical framework. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):522–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Warner M. Re-designing health services. Reducing the zone of delusion, vol. 1. London: The Nuffield Trust; 1997.
15.
Van Ginneken E. Perennial health care reform - the long Dutch quest for cost control and quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(10):885–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Schäfer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W, van den Berg M, Westert G, Devillé W, van Ginneken E. The Netherlands: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12(1):1–229.
17.
Daley C, Gubb J, Clarke E, Bidgood E. Healthcare systems. The Netherlands: Civitas; 2013.
18.
Hasaart F. Incentives in the diagnosis treatment combination payment system for specialist medical care. Maastricht: Datawyse Universitaire Per Maastricht; 2011.
19.
Berwick DM. A User's manual for the IOM's ‘Quality Chasm’ report. Health Aff. 2002;21(3):80–90.CrossRef
20.
Drewes HW, Heijink R, Struijs JN, Baan CA. Samen werken aan duurzame zorg; Landelijke monitor proeftuinen. In: Landelijke monitor proeftuinen. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu; 2015.
21.
Appelman M. Meer gezondheid tegen lagere kosten. In. Den Haag: Strategies in Regulated Markets; 2013.
22.
Steenbakkers M, Vermeer AJM, Janssen-Goffin MJH, Hajema KJ. Een nieuwe kijk op gezondheid in Zuid-Limburg. Regionaal rapport Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning 2014. Geleen: GGD Zuid Limburg; 2014.
23.
Struijs JN, Baan CA. Integrating care through bundled payments - lessons from the netherlands. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):990–1.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Bartak A, Spreeuwenberg MD, Andrea H, Busschbach JJ, Croon MA, Verheul R, Emmelkamp PM, Stijnen T. The use of propensity score methods in psychotherapy research. A practical application. Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(1):26–34.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Stiefel M, Nolan K. Guide to measuring the triple aim: population health, experience of care, and per capita cost. In: IHI innovation series white paper. Cambridge: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012.
28.
The EuoQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
29.
30.
Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res J. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRef
32.
Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–84.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. J Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):463–73.CrossRef
34.
Farivar SS, Cunningham WE, Hays RD. Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 health survey, V.I. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):54–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1171–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12 : how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Bosten: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.
37.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Meuwissen LE, de Bakker DH. CQ-index huisartsenzorg: meetinstrumentontwikkeling. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2008.
39.
Twisk JWR. Applied multilevel analysis a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.CrossRef
40.
Poland B. Handbook of interview research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 2001.
41.
Tavecchio L. Effectiviteit in praktijkgericht onderzoek. Kwaliteit in Zorg. 2014;2:16–20.
42.
Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–44.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observarional studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef
44.
Mery G, Majumder S, Brown A, Dobrow MJ. What do we mean when we talk about the triple aim? A systematic review of evolving definitions and adaptations of the framework at the health system level. Health Policy. 2017;121:629–36.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluating a Dutch cardiology primary care plus intervention on the Triple Aim outcomes: study design of a practice-based quantitative and qualitative research
Authors
Tessa C.C. Quanjel
Marieke D. Spreeuwenberg
Jeroen N. Struijs
Caroline A. Baan
Dirk Ruwaard
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2580-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Outcome following valve surgery in Australia: development of an enhanced database module

Research article

Mediation effects of medication information processing and adherence on association between health literacy and quality of life

Research article

Uptake of health services among truck drivers in South Africa: analysis of routine data from nine roadside wellness centres

Research article

Allocation of home care services by municipalities in Norway: a document analysis

Research article

Introducing voluntary private health insurance in a mixed medical economy: are Hong Kong citizens willing to subscribe?

Research article

Engaging patients in health research: identifying research priorities through community town halls