Objectives Accountable care organizations were implemented as a system-level approach to address quality differences and curb increasing healthcare costs in the United States of America, and have garnered the interest of policy makers in other countries to support better management of patients. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify the impacts of accountable care organizations on improving the quadruple aim goals of improving patient experience of care, enhancing population health outcomes, reducing the per capita cost of health care and ensuring positive provider experiences and (2) determine how and why such impacts have been achieved through accountable care organizations. Methods We used a rapid review approach, searching Health Systems Evidence (for systematic reviews) and PubMed (for reviews and studies). Results were reviewed for inclusion independently by two researchers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for consistency by another. Results We identified one recent systematic review and 59 primary studies that addressed the first objective ( n = 54), the second objective ( n = 4) or both objectives ( n = 1). The reviewed studies suggest that accountable care organizations reduce costs without reducing quality. Key findings related to objective 1 include: (1) there are positive trends across the quadruple–aim outcomes for accountable care organizations as compared to Medicare fee-for-service or group physician fee-for-service models; (2) accountable care organizations produced modest cost savings, which are largely attributable to savings in outpatient expenses among the most medically complex patients and reductions in the delivery of low-value services; (3) accountable care organization models met the majority of quality measures and perform better than their fee-for-service counterparts and (4) there is relatively little evidence about the impact of accountable care organizations on provider experience. Qualitative studies related to objective 2 highlighted mechanisms that were important for enabling accountable care organizations, including supplemental staff to enhance coordination and accountable care organization-wide electronic health records. Conclusions General trends and increased adoption of models similar to accountable care organizations outside of the USA suggest that these models outperform traditional fee-for-service models across the quadruple aim goals, although with mixed evidence about health outcomes.

No abstract

RÉSUMÉLes besoins en technologies d’assistance augmentent au Canada, mais l’accès à ces technologies est inégal et fragmentaire, ce qui ferait en sorte que des besoins demeureraient non comblés. Cette étude visait à identifier les valeurs et préférences des citoyens concernant les moyens à utiliser pour favoriser un accès équitable aux technologies d’assistance. Elle visait également à impliquer les décideurs politiques, les parties prenantes et les chercheurs dans des discussions afin d’élaborer des actions dans ce domaine. Au printemps 2017, nous avons organisé trois panels de citoyens et un dialogue avec les parties prenantes. Les principales conclusions des panels ont été incluses dans une synthèse qui a été partagée avec les participants du dialogue. Trente-sept citoyens ont participé aux panels et ont souligné l’importance de l’accès à de l’information fiable, d’un accès équitable aux technologies d’assistance (et ce, quelle que soit la capacité de payer), et de la collaboration. Les vingt-deux participants au dialogue ont fait valoir la nécessité d’un cadre d’orientation pour appuyer l’évolution des pratiques dans l’ensemble au pays. Le cadre d’orientation proposé combinerait des politiques et programmes simplifiés incluant la collecte et l’évaluation de données robustes pour appuyer l’innovation et l’imputabilité à travers le pays.

Approaches for rapid reviews that focus on streamlining systematic review methods are not always suitable for exploring complex policy questions, as developing and testing theories to explain these complexities requires configuring diverse qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Our objective was therefore to provide a guide to selecting approaches for rapidly (i.e., within days to months) addressing complex questions related to health policy and system issues.We provide a two-stage, transdisciplinary collaborative process to select a rapid review approach to address complex policy questions, which consists of scoping the breadth and depth of the literature and then selecting an optimal approach to synthesis. The first stage (scoping the literature) begins with a discussion with the stakeholders requesting evidence to identify and refine the question for the review, which is then used to conduct preliminary searches and conceptually map the documents identified. In the second stage (selection of an optimal approach), further stakeholder consultation is required to refine and tailor the question and approach to identifying relevant documents to include. The approach to synthesizing the included documents is then guided by the final question, the breadth and depth of the literature, and the time available and can include a static or evolving conceptual framework to code and analyze a range of evidence. For areas already covered extensively by existing systematic reviews, the focus can be on summarizing and integrating the review findings, resynthesizing the primary studies, or updating the search and reanalyzing one or more of the systematic reviews.The choice of approaches for conducting rapid reviews is intertwined with decisions about how to manage projects, the amount of work to be done, and the knowledge already available, and our guide offers support to help make these strategic decisions.