Literature review on monitoring technologies and their outcomes in independently living elderly people
In: Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology : special issue, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 271-294
ISSN: 1748-3115
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology : special issue, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 271-294
ISSN: 1748-3115
In: De Bruijn-Geraets , D P , van Eijk-Hustings , Y J L , Bessems-Beks , M C M , Essers , B A B , Dirksen , C D & Vrijhoef , H J M 2018 , ' National mixed methods evaluation of the effects of removing legal barriers to full practice authority of Dutch nurse practitioners and physician assistants ' , BMJ Open , vol. 8 , no. 6 , e019962 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019962
Objective To evaluate the effects of granting legal full practice authority (FPA) to nurse practitioners (NP) and physician assistants (PA) regarding the performance of specified reserved medical procedures and to support governmental decision-making. Design Nationwide mixed methods design with triangulation of quantitative (Pre-post test design) and qualitative data (expert interviews and focus groups). Methods Surveys focused on the performance of the procedures (monthly number, authorisation mode, consultations and procedural time) and legal cross compliance requirements (adherence with protocols, competence). Interviews focused on competence, knowledge, skills, responsibilities, routine behaviour, NP/PA role, acceptance, organisational structure, collaboration, consultation, NP/PA positioning, adherence with protocols and resources. Data collection took place between 2011 and 2015. Results Quantitative data included 1251 NPs, 798 PAs and 504 physicians. Besides, expert interviews with 33 healthcare providers and 28 key stakeholders, and 5 focus groups (31 healthcare providers) were held. After obtaining FPA, the proportion of NPs and PAs performing reserved procedures increased from 77% to 85% and from 86% to 93%, respectively; the proportion of procedures performed on own authority increased from 63% to 76% for NPs and from 67% to 71% for PAs. The mean number of monthly contacts between NPs/PAs and physicians about procedures decreased (from 81 to 49 and from 107 to 54, respectively), as did the mean duration in minutes (from 9.9 to 8.6 and from 8.8 to 7.4, respectively). Utilisation of FPA was dependent on the setting, as scepticism of physicians and medical boards hampered full implementation. Legal cross-compliance requirements were mostly fulfilled. Conclusions Informal practice was legalised. The opportunities to independently perform catheterisations, injections, prescribing, punctures and small surgical procedures were highly used. Care processes were organised more efficiently, services were ...
BASE
In: van Lier , L I , Bosmans , J E , van Hout , H P J , Mokkink , L B , van Den Hout , W B , de Wit , G A , Dirksen , C D , Nies , H L G R , Hertogh , C M P M & van der Roest , H G 2018 , ' Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations : a European Delphi study ' , European Journal of Health Economics , vol. 19 , no. 7 , pp. 993-1008 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0947-x
Objectives: Differences between country-specific guidelines for economic evaluations complicate the execution of international economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations using a Delphi procedure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify European guidelines on the execution of economic evaluations or costing studies as part of economic evaluations. Guideline recommendations were extracted by two independent reviewers and formed the basis for the first round of the Delphi study, which was conducted among European health economic experts. During three written rounds, consensus (agreement of 67% or higher) was sought on items concerning the identification, measurement and valuation of costs. Results: Recommendations from 18 guidelines were extracted. Consensus among 26 panellists from 17 European countries was reached on 61 of 68 items. The recommendations from the Delphi study are to adopt a societal perspective, to use patient report for measuring resource use and lost productivity, to value both constructs with use of country-specific standardized/unit costs and to use country-specific discounting rates. Conclusion: This study provides consensus-based cross-European recommendations on how to measure and value resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations. These recommendations are expected to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in executing and appraising economic evaluations performed in international contexts.
BASE
Objectives: Differences between country-specific guidelines for economic evaluations complicate the execution of international economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations using a Delphi procedure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify European guidelines on the execution of economic evaluations or costing studies as part of economic evaluations. Guideline recommendations were extracted by two independent reviewers and formed the basis for the first round of the Delphi study, which was conducted among European health economic experts. During three written rounds, consensus (agreement of 67% or higher) was sought on items concerning the identification, measurement and valuation of costs. Results: Recommendations from 18 guidelines were extracted. Consensus among 26 panellists from 17 European countries was reached on 61 of 68 items. The recommendations from the Delphi study are to adopt a societal perspective, to use patient report for measuring resource use and lost productivity, to value both constructs with use of country-specific standardized/unit costs and to use country-specific discounting rates. Conclusion: This study provides consensus-based cross-European recommendations on how to measure and value resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations. These recommendations are expected to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in executing and appraising economic evaluations performed in international contexts.
BASE
In: van Lier , L I , Bosmans , J E , van Hout , H P J , Mokkink , L B , van den Hout , W B , de Wit , G A , Dirksen , C D , Nies , H L G R , Hertogh , C M P M & van der Roest , H G 2018 , ' Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations : a European Delphi study ' , The European Journal of Health Economics , vol. 19 , no. 7 , pp. 993-1008 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0947-x
OBJECTIVES: Differences between country-specific guidelines for economic evaluations complicate the execution of international economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations using a Delphi procedure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify European guidelines on the execution of economic evaluations or costing studies as part of economic evaluations. Guideline recommendations were extracted by two independent reviewers and formed the basis for the first round of the Delphi study, which was conducted among European health economic experts. During three written rounds, consensus (agreement of 67% or higher) was sought on items concerning the identification, measurement and valuation of costs. RESULTS: Recommendations from 18 guidelines were extracted. Consensus among 26 panellists from 17 European countries was reached on 61 of 68 items. The recommendations from the Delphi study are to adopt a societal perspective, to use patient report for measuring resource use and lost productivity, to value both constructs with use of country-specific standardized/unit costs and to use country-specific discounting rates. CONCLUSION: This study provides consensus-based cross-European recommendations on how to measure and value resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations. These recommendations are expected to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in executing and appraising economic evaluations performed in international contexts.
BASE