Introduction: Increased interest in collaborative and inclusive approaches to healthcare improvement makes revisiting Elinor Ostrom’s ‘design principles’ for enabling collective management of common pool resources (CPR) in polycentric systems a timely endeavour. Theory and method: Ostrom proposed a generalisable set of eight core design principles for the efficacy of groups. To consider the utility of Ostrom’s principles for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future health(care) improvement we retrospectively apply them to a recent co-design project. Results: Three distinct aspects of co-design were identified through consideration of the principles. These related to: (1) understanding and mapping the system (2) upholding democratic values and (3) regulating participation. Within these aspects four of Ostrom’s eight principles were inherently observed. Consideration of the remaining four principles could have enhanced the systemic impact of the co-design process. Discussion: Reconceptualising co-design through the lens of CPR offers new insights into the successful system-wide application of such approaches for the purpose of health(care) improvement. Conclusion: The eight design principles – and the relationships between them – form a heuristic that can support the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future healthcare improvement projects adopting co-design. They may help to address questions of how to scale up and embed such approaches as self-sustaining in wider systems.

Background The burden of disease for persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and society is changing due to new treatments. Knowledge about the total need for care is necessary in relation to changing needs and new service models. Objective The aim of this study was to describe the contact patterns for MS patients, calculate costs in health care, and create meaningful subgroups to analyze contact patterns. Methods All patients diagnosed with MS at Ryhov Hospital were included. All contacts in the region from January 1, 2018, until September 30, 2019, were retrieved from the hospital administrative system. Data about age, sex, contacts, and diagnosis were registered. The cost was calculated using case costing, and costs for prescriptions were calculated from medical files. Results During the 21‐month period, patients (n = 305) had 9628 contacts and 7471 physical visits, with a total cost of $7,766,109. Seventeen percent of the patients accounted for 48% of the visits. The median annual cost was $7386 in the group with 10 or fewer visits, compared to $22,491 in patients with more than 50 visits. Conclusion There are considerable differences in the utilization of care and cost between patients with MS in an unselected population, meaning that the care needs to be better customized to each patient's demands.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract