Background In recent years, value-based healthcare (VBHC) has become one of the most accepted concepts for fixing the ‘broken’ healthcare systems. Numerous hospitals have embraced VBHC and are trying to implement value-based quality improvement (VBQI) into their practice. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how to practically implement VBHC and organizations differ in their approach. The aim of this study was to explore the main factors that were experienced as hindering and/or supporting in the implementation of VBQI teams in hospital care. Methods A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured interviews with 43 members of eight VBQI teams in a large Dutch top-clinical teaching hospital. Participants included physicians, physician assistants, nurses, VBHC project leaders, managers, social workers, researchers and paramedics. Interview grids were structured according to the RE-AIM model (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance). A thematic content analysis with open coding was used to identify emerging (sub)themes. Results We identified nine main factors divided over three domains (organization, culture and practice) that determined whether the implementation of VBQI teams was successful or not: 1). Practical organization of value-based quality improvement teams, 2). Organizational structure 3). Integration of VBHC with existing quality improvement approaches and research 4). Adoption and knowledge of the VBHC concept in the hospital 5). Multidisciplinary engagement 6). Medical leadership 7). Goal setting and selecting quality improvement initiatives 8). Long-cycle benchmarking and short-cycle feedback 9). Availability of outcome data. Conclusions Overall, this study goes beyond the general VBHC theory and provides healthcare providers with more detailed knowledge on how to practically implement value-based quality improvement in a hospital care setting. Factors in the ‘organization’ and ‘practice’ domain were mentioned in the strategic value agenda of Porter and Lee. Though, this study provides more practical insight in these two domains. Factors in the ‘culture’ domain were not mentioned in the strategic value agenda and have not yet been thoroughly researched before.

ObjectivesWe aimed to systematically map the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare (VBHC), and to identify research gaps.DesignA scoping review with an additional cited reference search was conducted, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.Data sourcesThe search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science.Eligibility criteriaEligible articles mentioned VBHC or value with reference to the work of Porter or provided a definition of VBHC or value.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted using a data extraction form. Two independent reviewers double extracted data from 10% of the articles. Data of the remaining articles (90%) were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The strategic agenda of Porter and Lee was used to categorise the included articles.ResultsThe searches yielded a total of 27,931 articles, of which 1,242 were analysed. Most articles were published in North America. Most articles described an application of VBHC by measuring outcomes and costs (agenda item 2). The other agenda items were far less frequently described or implemented. Most of these articles were conceptual, meaning that nothing was actually changed or implemented.ConclusionThe number of publications increased steadily after the introduction of VBHC in 2006. Almost one-fifth of the articles could not be categorised in one of the items of the strategic agenda, which may lead to the conclusion that the current strategic agenda could be extended. In addition, a practical roadmap or guideline to implement VBHC is still lacking. Future research could fill this gap by specifically studying the effectiveness of VBHC in day-to-day clinical practice.

RationaleWhile theoretical frameworks for optimization of the outpatient processes are abundant, practical step‐by‐step analyses to give leads for improvement, to forecast capacity, and to support decision making are sparse.Aims and objectivesThis article demonstrates how to evaluate and optimize the triad of demand, (future) capacity, and access time of the outpatient clinic using a structured six‐step method.MethodsAll individual logistical patient data of an orthopaedic outpatient clinic of one complete year were analysed using a 6‐step method to evaluate demand, supply, and access time. Trends in the data were retrospectively analysed and evaluated for potential improvements. A model for decision making was tested. Both the analysis of the method and actual results were considered as main outcomes.ResultsMore than 25 000 appointments were analysed. The 6‐step method showed to be sufficient to result in valuable insights and leads for improvement. While the overall match between demand and capacity was considered adequate, the variability in capacity was much higher than in demand, thereby leading to delays in access time. Holidays and subsequent weeks showed to be of great influence for demand, capacity, and access time. Using the six‐step method, several unfavourable characteristics of the outpatient clinic were revealed and a better match between demand, supply, and access time could have been reached with only minor adjustments. Last, a clinic specific prediction and decision model for demand and capacity was made using the 6‐step method.ConclusionsThe 6‐step analysis can successfully be applied to redesign and improve the outpatient health care process. The results of the analysis showed that national holidays and variability in demand and capacity have a big influence on the outpatient clinic. Using the 6‐step method, practical improvements in outpatient logistics were easily found and leads for future decision making were contrived.

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.