Is the QCI framework suited for monitoring outcomes and costs in a teaching hospital using value-based healthcare principles? A retrospective cohort study

Willem van Veghel*, Suzanne C. van Dijk, Taco M.A.L. Klem, Angelique E. Weel, Jean Bart Bügel, Erwin Birnie

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives:

The objective is to develop a pragmatic framework, based on value-based healthcare principles, to monitor health outcomes per unit costs on an institutional level. Subsequently, we investigated the association between health outcomes and healthcare utilisation costs.

Design:

This is a retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

A teaching hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Participants:

The study was performed in two use cases. The bariatric population contained 856 patients of which 639 were diagnosed with morbid obesity body mass index (BMI) <45 and 217 were diagnosed with morbid obesity BMI >= 45. The breast cancer population contained 663 patients of which 455 received a lumpectomy and 208 a mastectomy.

Primary and secondary outcome measures:

The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined as QCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros) where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path. Primary and secondary outcome measures The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined as QCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros) where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path. Primary and secondary outcome measures The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined as QCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros) where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path.

Results:

The breast cancer and bariatric population had the highest resulting outcome values in 2020 Q4, 0.93 and 0.73, respectively. The average total costs of the bariatric population remained stable (avg, <euro>8833.55, min <euro>8494.32, max <euro>9164.26). The breast cancer population showed higher variance in costs (avg, <euro>12 735.31 min <euro>12 188.83, max <euro>13 695.58). QCI values of both populations showed similar variance (0.3 and 0.8). Failing health outcome indicators was significantly related to higher hospital-based costs of care in both populations (p <0.01).

Conclusions:


The QCI framework is effective for monitoring changes in average total costs and relevant health outcomes on an institutional level. Health outcomes are associated with hospital-based costs of care.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere080257
Number of pages10
JournalBMJ open
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - May 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is the QCI framework suited for monitoring outcomes and costs in a teaching hospital using value-based healthcare principles? A retrospective cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this