Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Vera de Weerdt, Hanna Willems, Geeske Hofstra, Sjoerd Repping, Xander Koolman, Eric van der Hijden
{"title":"Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.","authors":"Vera de Weerdt, Hanna Willems, Geeske Hofstra, Sjoerd Repping, Xander Koolman, Eric van der Hijden","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often fails to create quality improvement since implementation of CER results in clinical practice is lacking. Claims-based Audit & Feedback (A&F) provides a resource efficient tool to stimulate implementation, but it is unknown whether medical professionals accept claims-based A&F in the context of CER. Therefore, in this study, we developed claims-based indicators using a cocreation approach and evaluated medical professionals' perception regarding the validity and acceptability of these indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2019 and November 2021, we used a cocreation approach with medical experts to develop claims-based indicators for six CER trials. The aim is to use the indicators for group level feedback on implementation of CER results to medical professionals across all healthcare providers in the Netherlands. To build the indicators, we used the most recent available Dutch national healthcare-related claims data of the year 2017. The cocreation process consisted of the following steps: (1) defining the target indicator, (2) selecting relevant claims codes, (3) testing feasibility of the indicators using Dutch claims data, (4) discussing results of feasibility testing and (5) defining the final indicators and reflecting on the acceptability of the indicators for feedback on implementation of CER results by the experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Claims-based indicators could not perfectly reflect the CER population for any of the six CER trials. However, the cocreation process did lead to a final indicator that medical experts found acceptable in four of six cases. Recommendations of medical experts for improving claims-based indicators included: select patients with minimal over- or underestimation of the CER population, use proxies to identify patients, determine incidence rather than prevalence for chronic conditions and use data linkage with diagnostic test results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A cocreation approach was a successful way to develop claims-based indicators on implementation of CER results, which were imperfect, but in some cases still acceptable as feedback to medical experts. Thus, for certain topics, claims data may provide a resource efficient data source for A&F interventions aiming to implement CER trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887289/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often fails to create quality improvement since implementation of CER results in clinical practice is lacking. Claims-based Audit & Feedback (A&F) provides a resource efficient tool to stimulate implementation, but it is unknown whether medical professionals accept claims-based A&F in the context of CER. Therefore, in this study, we developed claims-based indicators using a cocreation approach and evaluated medical professionals' perception regarding the validity and acceptability of these indicators.

Methods: Between July 2019 and November 2021, we used a cocreation approach with medical experts to develop claims-based indicators for six CER trials. The aim is to use the indicators for group level feedback on implementation of CER results to medical professionals across all healthcare providers in the Netherlands. To build the indicators, we used the most recent available Dutch national healthcare-related claims data of the year 2017. The cocreation process consisted of the following steps: (1) defining the target indicator, (2) selecting relevant claims codes, (3) testing feasibility of the indicators using Dutch claims data, (4) discussing results of feasibility testing and (5) defining the final indicators and reflecting on the acceptability of the indicators for feedback on implementation of CER results by the experts.

Results: Claims-based indicators could not perfectly reflect the CER population for any of the six CER trials. However, the cocreation process did lead to a final indicator that medical experts found acceptable in four of six cases. Recommendations of medical experts for improving claims-based indicators included: select patients with minimal over- or underestimation of the CER population, use proxies to identify patients, determine incidence rather than prevalence for chronic conditions and use data linkage with diagnostic test results.

Conclusion: A cocreation approach was a successful way to develop claims-based indicators on implementation of CER results, which were imperfect, but in some cases still acceptable as feedback to medical experts. Thus, for certain topics, claims data may provide a resource efficient data source for A&F interventions aiming to implement CER trials.

导言:由于在临床实践中缺乏对比较效益研究(CER)结果的实施,因此比较效益研究(CER)往往无法提高质量。以索赔为基础的审计与反馈(A&F)为促进实施提供了一种资源高效的工具,但在 CER 的背景下,医疗专业人员是否接受以索赔为基础的审计与反馈尚不得而知。因此,在本研究中,我们采用共同创造的方法开发了基于索赔的指标,并评估了医疗专业人员对这些指标的有效性和可接受性的看法:方法:2019 年 7 月至 2021 年 11 月期间,我们采用与医学专家共同创造的方法,为六项 CER 试验制定了基于索赔的指标。目的是利用这些指标向荷兰所有医疗机构的医疗专业人员提供有关 CER 结果实施情况的团体级反馈。为了制定指标,我们使用了 2017 年最新的荷兰全国医疗相关索赔数据。共同创建过程包括以下步骤:(1) 确定目标指标,(2) 选择相关的索赔代码,(3) 使用荷兰索赔数据测试指标的可行性,(4) 讨论可行性测试的结果,(5) 确定最终指标并反思指标的可接受性,以便专家对 CER 结果的实施进行反馈:结果:以索赔为基础的指标无法完美反映六项 CER 试验中任何一项的 CER 群体。然而,共同创造过程确实产生了最终指标,医学专家认为六个案例中有四个案例的最终指标是可以接受的。医学专家对改进基于索赔的指标提出的建议包括:选择尽量不高估或低估 CER 人群的患者;使用代理人识别患者;确定慢性病的发病率而不是流行率;以及使用与诊断检测结果相关联的数据:通过共同创造的方法,成功地制定了以报销为基础的 CER 结果实施指标,这些指标并不完美,但在某些情况下仍可作为对医学专家的反馈。因此,就某些主题而言,索赔数据可为旨在实施 CER 试验的 A&F 干预措施提供一个资源高效的数据源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信