PP119 Results And Lessons Learned From The Cyclic Appropriate Care Program From National Health Care Institute Of The Netherlands. (23rd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maagdenberg, Hedy; Stam, Mariska; Vreugdenhil, Tjitske; Böcker, Koen; Groeneveld, Iris
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 38(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: S79
• Page End: S80
• Publication Date: 2022-12-23
• Subjects: Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462322002410
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Since 2013, the National Health Care Institute in the Netherlands has systematically analyzed the appropriateness of care provided under public health insurance. Here we present the method used, the results up to now, and what we have learned from it. Methods: The appropriate care program consists of four phases: screening, in-depth analysis, implementation, and evaluation. Stakeholder involvement is a central part of the process. For every ICD-10 area, a screening took place to select care trajectories for in-depth analysis with a potential for wiser choices and more appropriate care. The in-depth analysis indicates which improvements can be made to reach more appropriate care, by assessing guideline adherence. During the implementation phase, which is primarily carried out by clinicians, patients and health insurers, actions are taken to improve care on the identified points. In the evaluation phase, we examine to what extent improvements have been achieved. Results: Currently, all ICD-10 areas have been screened and 29 selected care trajectories have been subjected to in-depth analyses. The analyses resulted in the identification of more than a hundred areas for potential improvement of the appropriateness of care. For most topics implementation of changes is currently taking place. The four most important impact-enhancing lessons learned by applying the working method are: (i) ICD-10 areas as a starting point for screening are not the most efficient method to reach the biggest impact. (ii) The screening should take a societal perspective. (iii) All public and private parties involved should fulfill their role and take responsibility. (iv) To fulfill our own role better, the working method should be more connected to health technology assessment for reimbursement decisions. Conclusions: The program has resulted in the identification of many valuable points for improvement which could lead to more appropriate care in the coming years. The impact of the program could be increased through priority setting from a societal perspective and improving the connection to our other health technology assessment processes.