No abstract

No abstract

Multiple-breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) and its clinical parameter lung clearance index (LCI) are gaining increasing attention for the assessment of small airway function. Measurement of LCI relies on accurate assessment of functional residual capacity (FRC). The EasyOne Pro LAB (ndd) and Exhalyzer D (EM) are two commercially available MBNW devices. The aim of the study was to compare these two devices in vitro and in vivo in healthy subjects with regard to FRC, LCI and secondary outcome parameters and to relate FRCMBNW to FRC measured by body plethysmography (pleth) and helium dilution technique. MBNW measurements were performed using a lung model (FRC between 500 and 4000 mL) in vitro and in 38 subjects aged 6–65 years followed by helium dilution and pleth in vivo using fixed and relaxed breathing techniques. In vitro accuracy within 5% of lung model FRC was 67.3% for ndd, FRC was >5% higher for EM in all tests. In vivo, FRCpleth ranged from 1.2 to 5.6 L. Mean differences (limits of agreement) between FRCpleth and FRCMBNW were −7.0%, (−23.2 to 9.2%) and 5.7% (−11.2 to 22.6%) using ndd and EM, respectively. FRCndd was consistently lower than FRCEM (−11.8% (−25.6 to 2%)). LCI was comparable between the two devices (−1.3% (−21.9 to 19.3%)). There was a difference of >10 % in LCI in 12 of 38 subjects. Using the most recent software updates, both devices show relevant deviations in FRC measurement both in vitro and in vivo and individual differences in LCI in a significant proportion of subjects. The devices are therefore not interchangeable.

To reduce the burden of chronic diseases on society and individuals, European countries implemented chronic Disease Management Programs (DMPs) that focus on the management of a single chronic disease. However, due to the fact that the scientific evidence that DMPs reduce the burden of chronic diseases is not convincing, patients with multimorbidity may receive overlapping or conflicting treatment advice, and a single disease approach may be conflicting with the core competencies of primary care. In addition, in the Netherlands, care is shifting from DMPs to person-centred integrated care (PC-IC) approaches. This paper describes a mixed-method development of a PC-IC approach for the management of patients with one or more chronic diseases in Dutch primary care, executed from March 2019 to July 2020. In Phase 1, we conducted a scoping review and document analysis to identify key elements to construct a conceptual model for delivering PC-IC care. In Phase 2, national experts on Diabetes Mellitus type 2, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and local healthcare providers (HCP) commented on the conceptual model using online qualitative surveys. In Phase 3, patients with chronic conditions commented on the conceptual model in individual interviews, and in Phase 4 the conceptual model was presented to the local primary care cooperatives and finalized after processing their comments. Based on the scientific literature, current practice guidelines, and input from a variety of stakeholders, we developed a holistic, person-centred, integrated approach for the management of patients with (multiple) chronic diseases in primary care. Future evaluation of the PC-IC approach will show if this approach leads to more favourable outcomes and should replace the current single-disease approach in the management of chronic conditions and multimorbidity in Dutch primary care.

To stimulate the integration of chronic care across disciplines, the Netherlands has implemented single-disease management programmes (SDMPs) in primary care since 2010; for example, for COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases. These disease-specific chronic care programmes are funded by bundled payments. For chronically ill patients with multimorbidity or with problems in other domains of health, this approach was shown to be less fit for purpose. As a result, we are currently witnessing several initiatives to broaden the scope of these programmes, aiming to provide truly person-centred integrated care (PC-IC). This raises the question if it is possible to design a payment model that would support this transition. We present an alternative payment model that combines a person-centred bundled payment with a shared savings model and pay-for-performance elements. Based on theoretical reasoning and results of previous evaluation studies, we expect the proposed payment model to stimulate integration of person-centred care between primary healthcare providers, secondary healthcare providers, and the social care domain. We also expect it to incentivise cost-conscious provider-behaviour, while safeguarding the quality of care, provided that adequate risk-mitigating actions, such as case-mix adjustment and cost-capping, are taken.