Suchergebnisse

In the past decade the issue of patient mobility has emerged on the European health policy agenda. Although the volume of patients crossing borders to obtain healthcare is low, it is increasing continuously and, due to its legal, financial and medical implications, has generated considerable interest among health policy and other decision makers. However, there is little information available on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care and neither governments nor citizens have an explicit basis for comparing healthcare delivery in Europe. This study investigated the viewpoints of patients, professionals and healthcare financiers on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care. Qualitative interviews were carried out during 2005 and early 2006 with 40 patients, 30 professionals (doctors, nurses and managers) and 3 healthcare-financing bodies. Although cross-border care has become a common issue in many European countries, there remain uncertainties on the side of each of the parties addressed-patients, professionals and financiers-with regard to the provision of cross-border care. One of the most striking results of this project is the current lack of research on systematic knowledge on the quality of cross-border care. Many of the issues identified through this research may have a potential impact on the quality and safety of cross-border care and will support further investigation and help shape the health policy agenda on patients crossing borders in European Union countries.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade the issue of patient mobility has emerged on the European health policy agenda. Although the volume of patients crossing borders to obtain healthcare is low, it is increasing continuously and, due to its legal, financial and medical implications, has generated considerable interest among health policy and other decision makers. However, there is little information available on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care and neither governments nor citizens have an explicit basis for comparing healthcare delivery in Europe. METHODS: This study investigated the viewpoints of patients, professionals and healthcare financiers on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care. Qualitative interviews were carried out during 2005 and early 2006 with 40 patients, 30 professionals (doctors, nurses and managers) and 3 healthcare-financing bodies. RESULTS: Although cross-border care has become a common issue in many European countries, there remain uncertainties on the side of each of the parties addressed--patients, professionals and financiers--with regard to the provision of cross-border care. One of the most striking results of this project is the current lack of research on systematic knowledge on the quality of cross-border care. CONCLUSION: Many of the issues identified through this research may have a potential impact on the quality and safety of cross-border care and will support further investigation and help shape the health policy agenda on patients crossing borders in European Union countries.

This article summarises the significant lessons to be drawn from, and the policy implications of, the findings of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) project--a part of the suite of research projects intended to support policy established by the European Commission through its Sixth Framework Programme. The article first reviews the findings of MARQuIS and their implications for healthcare providers (and particularly for hospitals), and then addresses the broader policy implications for member states of the European Union (EU) and for the commission itself. Against the background of the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme, it then outlines a number of future areas for research to inform policy and practice in quality and safety in Europe. The article concludes that at this stage, a unique EU-wide quality improvement system for hospitals does not seem to be feasible or effective. Because of possible future community action in this field, attention should focus on the use of existing research on quality and safety strategies in healthcare, with the aim of combining soft measures to accelerate mutual learning. Concrete measures should be considered only in areas for which there is substantial evidence and effective implementation can be ensured.