No abstract

BackgroundA quarter of the population present at least once a year with a musculoskeletal disorder. Primary hip osteoarthritis is a high-volume condition with significant clinical need and population-level costs. There remains much variation in patient outcomes and care delivery costs for this condition.AimsThe study aimed to gauge if pathway redesign based on the principles of value-based healthcare (VBHC) could increase value. The aim was to calculate the value of treatment for primary hip osteoarthritis through measuring outcomes that matter to patients, as well as the costs of delivering them. Additionally it aimed to compare two care pathways to identify which elements may better promote the delivery of high-value clinical care.MethodsTwo care models were evaluated: the first being a traditional model with multiple entry points and without pathway standardisation, and the second an intentionally designed standardised multidisciplinary pathway. Mandated National Health Service patient-reported outcomes were assessed but were restructured into a patient-centred format to assess the impact on pain, function and psychological outcomes. Patient-level pathway economic evaluation was performed. Using these data, outcomes were mapped against cost to calculate value.ResultsThere were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two models. The intentionally designed model delivered better value care, having lower pathway costs. This model produced a small but inconsistent positive financial margin.ConclusionsIntentionally designed, integrated elective services offer an opportunity to develop and evaluate VBHC models. Analysis of two care pathways from a VBHC perspective demonstrated that an intentionally designed pathway had higher value. The higher value pathway maximised the benefits of having physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons working side by side. Developing and measuring patient-orientated outcomes and performing accurate economic evaluation are the key to understanding and achieving better value care.

Better planning is necessary to optimize both clinical and research responses to future pandemics.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives.DesignA list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance.ResultsThe outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors.ConclusionImplementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.