LTC Quality Policies and Indicators in European Countries

Transcription

1 LTC Quality Policies and Indicators in European Countries Results of the EU-funded project ANCIEN, Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations Georgia Casanova Contact: Bruxelles Oct

2 Summary 1- Introduction Preamble wp5 analysis and results Slides Dimensions used 5-11 Starting point: WP1 analysis 12 tools and methodology frequency analysis Cluster analysis and Rankings c) Monitoring frequencies and transparency attitude d) Quality dimensions network Conclusions Introduction

3 ANCIEN - research questions: 1) How will need, demand, supply and use of LTC develop? 2) How do different systems of LTC perform? WP5 QUESTIONS : Is there quality system across the coutries? How this quality is measured? Which indicators are used in the different country? What are the caracteristics of quality models? 1- Introduction

4 Long Term Care According to the World Health Organisation (2002) the goal of LTC is to ensure that an individual who is not fully capable of long-term self-care can maintain the best possible quality of life, with the greatest possible degree of independence, autonomy, participation, personal fulfilment and human dignity. 1- Introduction

5 Wp5 study : All dimensions included POINTS OF VIEW LTC QUALITY DIMENSIONS ( dimensions of health care performance ) System dimensions Types of care SUB DIMENTIONS Effectiveness, Safety ( of patient and workforce) Patient value responsiveness Coordination Input Process Outcome Formal institutional Care(FIC) Formal Home Based Care( FHBC) Formal Home Nursing Care (FNNC) Informal Home Care (IHC) 1- Introduction

6 1- Introduction System dimensions

7 LTC quality dimensions 1- Introduction Conceptual framework for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Care Quality Indicator (HCQI) Project (OECD,2006)

8 Effectiveness Achieving intended effects: effectiveness refers to the extent to which the intervention produces the intended effects. The Council of Europe (1997) talks about increasing the chance to achieve desired results and avoid undesired results. 2. Appropriateness: As a performance dimension, this indicates the degree to which provided health care corresponds to the clinical needs, given the current best evidence. This dimension is most often presented as part of effectiveness. 3. Competence of health system personnel: This dimension assesses the degree to which health system personnel have the training, the professionalism and the abilities to assess, treat and communicate with their clients. This dimension, in terms of its assessment, is assumed to be included in effectiveness 1- Introduction

9 Safety (of patients and workforce) The degree to which care processes avoid, prevent and ameliorate adverse outcomes or injuries that stem from the process of care itself (National Patient Safety Foundation, 2000). Safety is a dimension that is closely related to effectiveness, although distinct from it in its emphasis on the prevention of unintentional adverse events for patients. 1- Introduction

10 Patient value responsiveness Achieving non-health related expectations: Refers to how a system treats people to meet their legitimate non-health expectations (WHO, 2000) and their preferences and values: emotional well-being, personal development, self-determination, interpersonal relations, social inclusion and social networks. Satisfaction: How the treatment and the improvement in patient s health meets his/her expectations. Acceptability: How humanely and considerately the treatment is delivered. 1- Introduction

11 Coordination 1) Timeliness is a related concept that is used in several country frameworks and refers to the degree to which patients are able to obtain care promptly. It includes both timely access to care (people can get care when needed) and coordination of care (once under care, the system facilitates moving people across providers and through the stages of care). 2) Continuity addresses the extent to which health care for specified users, over time, is coordinated across providers and institutions. 3) Integration between primary and secondary care, and between health care and social care. 1- Introduction

12 LTC system organization (WP1 analysis) Patient friendliness =means-testing, entitlements for services, availability of cash benefits, provider choice, quality assurance and integration of care. Financial generosity = % of LTC public expenditure on GDP, and presence or not of cost-sharing 1- Introduction

13 ANCIEN questionnaire Questions on policies (plan and do), monitoring system (check) interventions (act) about: 4 quality dimensions: effectiveness, safety, patientcentredness, coordination 4 types of LTC: Formal Institutional Care (FIC), Formal Home Nursing Care (FHNC), Formal Home Based Care (FHBC), Informal Care. 3 system dimensions: input-process-outcome 15 countries: Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungaru, Italy, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.

14 The analysis Tool: questionnaire ANALYSIS STEPS : a)frequency analysis b)cluster analysis and Ranking c) Monitoring frequencies and transparency attitude d) Quality dimensions network

15 a) Frequencies analisys (1) Indicators by LTC type (%)

16 a) Frequencies analisys (2) Indicators by quality dimension (%)

17 a) Frequencies analisys (3) Indicators on input-process-outcome (%)

18 a) Cluster analisys and ranking (1) Methods The multiple correspondence analysis extracted 3 synthetic dimensions, which express 57.9% of total variance (Cronbach Alphas p<0.05); the factors composition and their individual contribution to variance are shown in the following tables. Hierarchical cluster analysis produced 4 clusters

19 a) Cluster analysis and ranking (2) Variables included in the analysis Effectiveness/Formal Institutional Care Effectiveness/Formal Home Based Care Effectiveness/Formal Home Nursing Care Effectiveness/Informal Home Care Safety/Formal Institutional Care Safety/Formal Home Based Care Safety/Formal Home Nursing Care Safety/Informal Home Care Patient Value Responsiveness/Formal Institutional Care Patient Value Responsiveness/Formal Home Based Care Patient Value Responsiveness/Formal Home Nursing Care Patient Value Responsiveness/Informal Home Care Coordination/Formal Institutional Care Coordination/Formal Home Based Care Coordination/Formal Home Nursing Care Coordination/Informal Home Care Technology Effectiveness Technology Safety Technology Responsiveness Technology Coordination WP1 Choose FIC/HBC WP1 assurance mandatory WP1 coordination between LTC and other services

20 a) Cluster analysis and ranking (2) Factor 1 National visibility of quality performance Quality guidelines effectiveness Quality guidelines safety Quality guidelines responsiveness Quality guidelines coordination WP1 assurance mandatory Quality Dimension Safety Quality Dimension Patient value Quality Indicators Safety Quality Indicators Patient Value Quality Dimension Formal Institutional Care Quality Dimension Formal Home Based Care Proportion of quality indicators on outcomes Factors Factor 3 WP1 coordination between LTC and other services Quality Dimension Effectiveness Quality Indicators Effectiveness Quality Indicators Coordination Quality Indicators Formal Home Based Care Quality Indicators Formal Home Nursing Care Quality Indicators Informal Home Care Proportion of quality indicators on inputs Factor 2 Frequency of monitoring for confirming accreditation/ authorization to FIC (in years) WP1 Choose FIC/HBC Quality Dimension Coordination Quality Dimension Formal Home Nursing Care Quality Dimension Informal Home Care Quality Indicators Formal Institutional Care Proportion of quality indicators on processes LTC specific education mandatory for how many LTC roles

21 a) Cluster analysis and ranking (3) Clusters based on LTC quality Cluster 1: Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, The Netherlands, Slovakia, United Kingdom Cluster 2: Austria, Finland, Hungary, Spain, Sweden Cluster 3: Poland, Slovenia Cluster 4: Italy Quality policies about formal LTC, both residential and at home; outcome related policies and indicators; and guidelines about quality of LTC. Latvia actually belongs to cluster 1 but presents features of cluster 2 as well. Quality policies about formal LTC, as in cluster 1, but with a focus on monitoring quality of processes and quality of inputs rather than of outcomes. Some policy about quality of informal care is present. Lack of quality policies and indicators Quality policies and indicators about formal LTC; presence of guidelines about quality of LTC; lack of policies and indicators about responsiveness to patient needs.

22 b) Cluster analysis and ranking (4) Attempted rankings Analyses by Georgia Casanova and Roberto Lillini

23 b) Cluster analysis and ranking (5) Some notes: Not surprisingly : outcome-based indicators and indicators for informal care are not diffused Countries form 4 clusters based on quality policies for LTC Countries with high use of formal care and financial generosity have coherently developed LTC quality policies and indicators for formal care Countries less financially generous (more private spending) and providing less services (high informal care use) have invested less on quality

24 b) Cluster analiysis and ranking (6) Integration Key problem across countries.: timeliness, continuity of care, integration across levels of care Few indicators about integration Low integration between LTC and hospital care

25 c) Monitoring frequencies and transparency attitude(1) Transparency country UK The Netherlands Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovakia Poland Latvia Italy Hungary Germany France Finland Estonia Austria Data avail able to the publ ic? X X X X V V X V X X X X V V V The Netherlands: data publicized on a voluntary basis (in 2008 about 50%) Slovakia: data will be publicized in 2013, according to new law UK: data publicized until 2010

26 c) Monitoring frequencies and transparency attitude(2) Frequency of quality monitoring UK The Netherlands Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovakia Poland Latvia Italy Hungary Germany France Finland Estonia Austria frequency 5 1 na na 1 3 na na 1 5

27 d) Quality dimensions network(1) Quality indicators collected FIC FHBC FHNC IHC Effect. Safety Resp. Coord. INPUT PROCE S S OUTCO M E FIC FHBC FHNC IHC Effectiveness Safety Responsivene ss Coordination INPUT PROCESS OUTCOME

28 d) Quality dimensions network(2)

29 d) Quality dimensions network(3) To be noticed About 40% FIC indicators are also used for FHBC. There are more shared indicators between FIC and FHBC than between FIC and FHNC: LTC is more social care than health care. FHBC and FHNC indicators balance between effectiveness and responsiveness, while FIC indicators are only focused on effectiveness. Input, Process and Outcome indicators are equally distributed across LTC types (20%-60%-20%). Golden rule?

30 Conclusions Data, data, data: we need more standardized data to produce quality policies and care plans. Integration: more communication, invest on more integrated communication technologies Monitoring: not just frequency, interventions based on monitoring results (plan-do-check-act) Trasparency: recommended, it starts a virtous cycle Informal care support: not just cash benefits, also services LTC workforce: invest on specific training and more nurses Outcome indicators: a national stardard multidimensional assessment form should be adopted (Inter-RAI?) 3- conclusions

31 More information: ANCIEN project: ANCIEN project quality reports: Thank you!