Emergency care reconfiguration in the Netherlands: conflicting interests and trade-offs from a multidisciplinary perspective.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000099
Nanne van Velzen, Richard Janssen, Marco Varkevisser
{"title":"Emergency care reconfiguration in the Netherlands: conflicting interests and trade-offs from a multidisciplinary perspective.","authors":"Nanne van Velzen,&nbsp;Richard Janssen,&nbsp;Marco Varkevisser","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many countries are reconfiguring their emergency care systems to improve quality and efficiency of care, and this often includes the concentration of emergency departments (EDs). This trend is evident in the Netherlands, but the best approach is the subject of debate among stakeholders. We (i) examined the views of stakeholders on the concentration of EDs in the Netherlands and (ii) identified the main conflicting interests and trade-offs that are relevant for health policy. To do this, we organised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with emergency care professionals, hospital executives and selected external stakeholders. First, the participants saw both advantages and disadvantages to concentration, but these were also contested and debated. Second, we found that - sometimes conflicting - public health care goals (i.e. quality, accessibility and affordability) and narrower interests (e.g. the interests of specific hospitals, insurers, medical specialists and local administrators) were both pointed out. Third, there was no clear preferred approach to the future organisation of EDs, although most stakeholders mentioned some form of centralised decision-making at the national level, combined with regional customisation. Our findings will facilitate health policy decision-making around the reconfiguration of emergency care with the long-term goal of achieving efficient and high-quality emergency care.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000099","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Many countries are reconfiguring their emergency care systems to improve quality and efficiency of care, and this often includes the concentration of emergency departments (EDs). This trend is evident in the Netherlands, but the best approach is the subject of debate among stakeholders. We (i) examined the views of stakeholders on the concentration of EDs in the Netherlands and (ii) identified the main conflicting interests and trade-offs that are relevant for health policy. To do this, we organised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with emergency care professionals, hospital executives and selected external stakeholders. First, the participants saw both advantages and disadvantages to concentration, but these were also contested and debated. Second, we found that - sometimes conflicting - public health care goals (i.e. quality, accessibility and affordability) and narrower interests (e.g. the interests of specific hospitals, insurers, medical specialists and local administrators) were both pointed out. Third, there was no clear preferred approach to the future organisation of EDs, although most stakeholders mentioned some form of centralised decision-making at the national level, combined with regional customisation. Our findings will facilitate health policy decision-making around the reconfiguration of emergency care with the long-term goal of achieving efficient and high-quality emergency care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊护理重组在荷兰:利益冲突和权衡从多学科的角度。
许多国家正在重新配置其紧急护理系统,以提高护理质量和效率,这通常包括急诊科的集中。这种趋势在荷兰很明显,但最佳方法是利益相关者之间辩论的主题。我们(i)审查了利益攸关方对荷兰急诊科集中的看法,(ii)确定了与卫生政策相关的主要利益冲突和权衡。为此,我们组织了焦点小组,并与急救专业人员、医院管理人员和选定的外部利益相关者进行了半结构化访谈。首先,参与者看到了专注的好处和坏处,但这些也存在争议和争论。其次,我们发现有时相互冲突的公共卫生保健目标(即质量,可及性和可负担性)和狭隘的利益(例如特定医院,保险公司,医学专家和地方行政人员的利益)都被指出。第三,尽管大多数利益相关者都提到了某种形式的国家层面的集中决策,并结合地区定制,但对于未来EDs的组织没有明确的首选方法。我们的研究结果将促进围绕急诊护理重新配置的卫生政策决策,以实现高效和高质量的急诊护理的长期目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
How should medicines reimbursement work? The views of Spanish experts. Success and failure in establishing national physician databases: a comparison between Canada and Israel. Implications of the fair processes for financing UHC report for development assistance: reflections and an application of the decision-making principles to PEPFAR. A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices. Response to critics of Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1