The Dutch health system in 2019: Many major reforms, but still work in progress

Implementing a new living concept for persons with dementia in long-term care: evaluation of a quality improvement process

BACKGROUND

Improving quality of nursing home care for residents is a constant focus of stakeholders involved within quality improvement projects. Though, achieving change in long-term care is challenging. Process evaluations provide insight into the nature, exposure and experiences of stakeholders and influencing mechanisms for implementation. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the process and facilitating and hindering mechanisms of implementing a quality improvement project that seeks to create a dementia-friendly community with a nursing home at its core.

METHODS

For the process evaluation we planned a case study design with an ethnographic approach. Various research methods were used: qualitative observations, focus groups, interviews and questionnaires for various stakeholders and document review. Data collection and analyses in this study is based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Four main lessons were learned. Firstly, nursing staff are crucial to achieve more freedom for residents. Secondly, high-impact changes in daily care need strong and sustainable focus from the care organisation. Thirdly, dementia-friendly societies should be deployed from multiple actors, which entails long-term collaborations with external stakeholders. Fourthly, the transition to a dementia-friendly society requires meeting spaces for and a focus on both residents and people from the community. Consequently, local residents are shifting from external to internal stakeholders, extending beyond the regular involvement of informal carers and volunteers within the nursing home.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing homes are part of the local community and provide opportunities to collaborate on a dementia-friendly society. However, the change that is required (promoting freedom, residents' autonomy and the redesign of care processes) is complex and influenced by various mechanisms. Understanding these mechanisms can benefit other care organisations that strive to implement a similar initiative.

Framing the pandemic: Multiplying "crises" in Dutch healthcare governance during the emerging COVID-19 pandemic

In this paper we explore the impact of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic on the governance of healthcare in the Netherlands. In doing so, we re-examine the idea that a crisis necessarily leads to processes of transition and change by focusing on crisis as a specific language of organizing collective action instead. Framing a situation as a crisis of a particular kind allows for specific problem definitions, concurrent solutions and the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders. Using this perspective, we examine the dynamics and institutional tensions involved in governing healthcare during the pandemic. We make use of multi-sited ethnographic research into the Dutch healthcare crisis organization as it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on decision-making at the regional level. We tracked our participants through successive waves of the pandemic between March 2020 and August 2021 and identified three dominant framings of the pandemic-as-crisis: a crisis of scarcity, a crisis of postponed care and a crisis of acute care coordination. In this paper, we discuss the implications of these framings in terms of the institutional tensions that arose in governing healthcare during the pandemic: between centralized, top-down crisis management and local, bottom-up work; between informal and formal work; and between existing institutional logics.

Orchestration versus bookkeeping: How stakeholder pressures drive a healthcare purchaser's institutional logics

Background

Healthcare purchasers such as health insurers and governmental bodies are expected to strategically manage chronic care chains. In doing so, purchasers can contribute to the goal of improving task division and collaboration between chronic care providers as has been recommended by numerous studies. However, healthcare purchasing research indicates that, in most countries, purchasers still struggle to fulfil a proactive, strategic approach. Consequently, a typical pattern occurs in which care improvement initiatives are instigated, but not transformed into regular care. By acknowledging that healthcare purchasers are embedded in a care chain of stakeholders who have different, sometimes conflicting, interests and, by taking an institutional logics lens, we seek to explain why achieving strategic purchasing and sustainable improvement is so elusive.

Method and findings

We present a longitudinal case study in which we follow a health insurer and care providers aiming to improve the care of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in a region of the Netherlands. Taking a theoretical lens of institutional logics, our aim was to answer ‘how stakeholder pressures influence a purchaser’s use of institutional logics when pursuing the right care at the right place’. The insurer by default predominantly expressed a bookkeeper’s logic, reflecting a focus on controlling short-term care costs by managing individual providers. Over time, a contrasting orchestrator’s logic emerged in an attempt to achieve chain-wide improvement, striving for better health outcomes and lower long-term costs. We established five types of stakeholder pressure to explain the shift in logic adoption: relationship pressures, cost pressures, medical demands, public health demands and uncertainty. Linking the changes in logic over time with stakeholder pressures showed that, firstly, the different pressures interact in influencing the purchaser. Secondly, we saw that the lack of intra-organisational alignment affects how the purchaser deals with the different stakeholder pressures.

Conclusions

By highlighting the purchaser’s difficult position in the care chain and the consequences of their own internal responses, we now better understand why the intended orchestrator’s logic and thereby a strategic approach to purchasing chronic care proves unsustainable within the Dutch healthcare system of managed competition.

Layering risk work amidst an emerging crisis: an ethnographic study on the governance of the COVID-19 pandemic in a university hospital in the Netherlands

The start of the COVID-19 pandemic early 2020 has confronted healthcare sectors with risks and uncertainties on an unprecedented scale in recent history. Healthcare organisations faced acute problems, the answers to which had to be provided, and recalibrated, at short notice and informally. University hospitals played a pivotal role in providing these answers and in (re)calibrating institutional arrangements. Based on ethnographic research in an elite university hospital in the Netherlands, in this article we explore the concrete practices of governing risks and uncertainties that COVID-19 posed for the organisation of healthcare. Our fieldwork consisted of the observation of meetings at the level of the hospital boards, the staff, and the regional level. We collected relevant documents and interviewed key-actors. This approach offers us a large dataset on acute risk governance ‘from within’ and allows us to offer a layered ethnographic account of managerial practices. In our analysis we focus on conceptualising the work-as-done in the university hospital as risk work. We show how the risk work of our participants is generally characterised by high speed and delineated by scarcities. We differentiate between three modes of risk work: working on numbers, working on expertise and working on logistics. This risk work appears innovative, but our analysis stresses how participants’ work happened in interaction with traditional institutional logics and routines.

Effects of the reform of the Dutch healthcare into managed competition: Results of a Delphi study among experts

BACKGROUND

In 2006 a major healthcare reform was introduced in the Netherlands, implying managed competition. This study explored the level of consensus on the outcomes and desired changes of this new system, and differences between stakeholder groups.

METHODS

A three-round Delphi-study was conducted among Dutch healthcare insurers, health economists, and professionals in general practice (GP) care and mental health (MH) care. In the first round, 20 experts indicated the most important advantages and disadvantages of the Dutch managed competition, and desired changes. Experts in the second (n = 106) and third round (N = 88) rated the importance of the 88 factors identified in the first round.

RESULTS

Only healthcare insurers reached consensus on important advantages (i.e. improved efficiency; room for choice). Health economists reached almost no consensus on any factors. GP and MH-care professionals reached most consensus on disadvantages (i.e. focus on price over quality, increased bureaucracy) and desired changes (i.e. reduce bargaining power of healthcare insurers; increase attention for care of complex patients); half of them suggested abolishment of managed competition.

CONCLUSION

GP and MH-care professionals were most dissatisfied and suggested several changes or even abolishment of the 2006 reform; healthcare insurers mentioned some benefits. This level of dissatisfaction among health care professionals indicates that there is room for improvement, preferably developed in conjunction with stakeholders.

For-Profit Nursing Homes in the Netherlands: What Factors Explain Their Rise?

This exploratory, mixed-methods study analyzes characteristics of the emerging for-profit nursing home industry in the Netherlands and identifies the interrelated set of factors (context, trends, and sector conditions) that contribute to its growth. Until recently, the Dutch nursing home sector relied almost exclusively on nonprofit providers. Even though profit distribution in nursing home care is still banned, the for-profit nursing home sector is expanding. The study uses economic theory on nonprofit organizations and mixed-form markets to understand this expansion. We find that changes in the regulatory framework have unlocked the potential of the for-profit nursing home sector, enabling for-profit nursing homes to circumvent the for-profit ban. The expansion of the for-profit sector was mainly driven by the low responsiveness of the nonprofit sector to increased and changed demands. For-profit providers took advantage of this void. Moreover, they exploited “cream-skimming” potential in the market and used the wider care system to reduce their labor costs by relying on external specialist care. Another main driver was the access to financial capital from private investors (e.g., private equity firms).