No abstract

Background This systematic literature review identifies hospital value-based healthcare quality measures, measurement practices, and tools, as well as potential strategies for improving cardiovascular diseases and cancer care. Methods A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (OvidSP) databases. We included studies on quality measures in hospital value-based healthcare for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted data thematically. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and four validated tools were used for methodological quality assessment. Results The search yielded 2860 publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 60 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that standardized outcome sets with patient involvement were developed for some cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Despite the heterogeneity in outcome measures, there was consensus to include clinical outcomes on survival rate and disease control, disutility of care, and patient-reported outcome measures such as long-term quality of life. Conclusion Hospitals that developed value-based healthcare or are planning to do so can choose whether they prefer to implement the standardized outcomes step-by-step, collect additional measures, or develop their own set of measures. However, they need to ensure that their performance can be consistently compared to that of their peers and that they measure what prioritizes and maximizes value for their patients. Trial registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021229763.

The association between patient experience and the quality of hospital care is controversial. We assess the association between clinical outcomes and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge on this issue informs value-based health-care reforms. A retrospective observational study was conducted in 17 hospitals in Saudi Arabia during the period of 2019–22. Hospital data were collected on PREMs, mortality, readmission, length of stay (LOS), central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and surgical site infection. Descriptive analysis was used to describe hospital characteristics. Spearman’s rho correlation tests were used to assess the correlation between these measures, and multivariate generalized linear mixed model regression analysis was used to study associations while controlling for hospital characteristics and year. Our analysis showed that PREMs were negatively correlated with hospital readmission rate (r = −0.332, P ≤ .01), LOS (r = −0.299, P ≤ .01), CLABSI (r = −0.297, P ≤ .01), CAUTI (r = −0.393, P ≤ .01), and surgical site infection (r = −0.298, P ≤ .01). The results indicated that CAUTI and LOS converged negatively with PREMs (β = −0.548, P = .005; β = −0.873, P = .008, respectively) and that larger hospitals tended to have better patient experience scores (β =0.009, P = .003). Our findings suggest that better performance in clinical outcomes is associated with higher PREM scores. PREMs are not a substitute or surrogate for clinical quality. Yet, PREMs are complementary to other objective measures of patient-reported outcomes, the process of care, and clinical outcomes.