Sabine N van der Veer

Publications (9)27.77 Total impact

• Article: Learning from practice variation to improve the quality of care.

  Charles R V Tomson, Sabine N van der Veer
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Modern medicine is complex and delivered by interdependent teams. Conscious redesign of the way in which these teams interact can contribute to improving the quality of care by reducing practice variation. This requires techniques that are different to those used for individual patient care. In this paper, we describe some of these quality improvement (QI) techniques. The first section deals with the identification of practice variation as the starting point of a systematic QI endeavour. This involves collecting data in multiple centres on a set of quality indicators as well as on case-mix variables that are thought to affect those indicators. Reporting the collected indicator data in longitudinal run charts supports teams in monitoring the effect of their QI effort. After identifying the opportunities for improvement, the second section discusses how to reduce practice variation. This includes selecting the 'package' of clinical actions to implement, identifying subsidiary actions to achieve the improvement aim, designing the implementation strategy and ways to incentivise QI.
  Clinical medicine (London, England) 02/2013; 13(1):19-23. · 1.15 Impact Factor
• Article: Process evaluation of a tailored multifaceted feedback program to improve the quality of intensive care by using quality indicators.

  Maartje L G de Vos, Sabine N van der Veer, Wilco C Graafmans, Nicolette F de Keizer, Kitty J Jager, Gert P Westert, Peter H J van der Voort
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In multisite trials evaluating a complex quality improvement (QI) strategy the 'same' intervention may be implemented and adopted in different ways. Therefore, in this study we investigated the exposure to and experiences with a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving the quality of intensive care, and explore potential explanations for why the intervention was effective or not. METHODS: We conducted a process evaluation investigating the effect of a multifaceted improvement intervention including establishment of a local multidisciplinary QI team, educational outreach visits and periodical indicator feedback on performance measures such as intensive care unit length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration and glucose regulation. Data were collected among participants receiving the intervention. We used standardised forms to record time investment and a questionnaire and focus group to collect data on perceived barriers and satisfaction. RESULTS: The monthly time invested per QI team member ranged from 0.6 to 8.1 h. Persistent problems were: not sharing feedback with other staff; lack of normative standards and benchmarks; inadequate case-mix adjustment; lack of knowledge on how to apply the intervention for QI; and insufficient allocated time and staff. The intervention effectively targeted the lack of trust in data quality, and was reported to motivate participants to use indicators for QI activities. CONCLUSIONS: Time and resource constraints, difficulties to translate feedback into effective actions and insufficient involvement of other staff members hampered the impact of the intervention. However, our study suggests that a multifaceted feedback program stimulates clinicians to use indicators as input for QI, and is a promising first step to integrating systematic QI in daily care.
  BMJ quality & safety 01/2013;
• Article: Exploring the relationships between patient characteristics and their dialysis care experience.

  Sabine N van der Veer, Onyebuchi A Arah, Ella Visserman, Hans A J Bart, Nicolette F de Keizer, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Lara M Heuveling, Karien Stronks, Kitty J Jager
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Background Previous studies have shown that it is possible for patient experience to be influenced by factors that are not attributable to health-care. Therefore, if patient experience is to be used as an accurate indicator of clinical performance, then it is important to understand its determinants.Methods We used data from 840 dialysis patients who completed a validated patient experience survey. We created a potential theoretical framework based on available clinical knowledge to hypothesize the relationships between 13 demographic, socio-economic and health status factors and three outcome measures: global rating of the dialysis centre and the patient experience with the nephrologist's and nurses' care. The theoretical framework guided the selection of confounding variables for each determinant, which were then entered as terms in multivariable linear regression models.ResultsPatients who were of older age, of non-European decent, and who had a lower educational level, lower albumin level, with better self-rated health and who were without co-morbidities reported higher global ratings with the dialysis centre than their counterparts. Past myocardial infarction and better self-rated health were found to be determinants of a more positive experience while in the nephrologist's care. A more positive experience with nurses' care was associated with factors including older age, Dutch origin background, lower educational level, lower albumin levels and better self-rated health.Conclusions Several characteristics of dialysis patients influence the way they rate and experience their care. When using the patient experience and ratings as indicators of clinical performance, they should be adjusted for such factors as identified in our study. This will facilitate a meaningful comparison of dialysis centres, and enable informed decision making by patients, insurers and policy makers.
  Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 08/2012; · 3.40 Impact Factor
• Article: Development and validation of the Consumer Quality index instrument to measure the experience and priority of chronic dialysis patients.

  Sabine N van der Veer, Kitty J Jager, Ella Visserman, Robert J Beekman, Els W Boeschoten, Nicolette F de Keizer, Lara Heuveling, Karien Stronks, Onyebuchi A Arah
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Patient experience is an established indicator of quality of care. Validated tools that measure both experiences and priorities are lacking for chronic dialysis care, hampering identification of negative experiences that patients actually rate important. We developed two Consumer Quality (CQ) index questionnaires, one for in-centre haemodialysis (CHD) and the other for peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis (PHHD) care. The instruments were validated using exploratory factor analyses, reliability analysis of identified scales and assessing the association between reliable scales and global ratings. We investigated opportunities for improvement by combining suboptimal experience with patient priority. Sixteen dialysis centres participated in our study. The pilot CQ index for CHD care consisted of 71 questions. Based on data of 592 respondents, we identified 42 core experience items in 10 scales with Cronbach's α ranging from 0.38 to 0.88; five were reliable (α ≥ 0.70). The instrument identified information on centres' fire procedures as the aspect of care exhibiting the biggest opportunity for improvement. The pilot CQ index PHHD comprised 56 questions. The response of 248 patients yielded 31 core experience items in nine scales with Cronbach's α ranging between 0.53 and 0.85; six were reliable. Information on kidney transplantation during pre-dialysis showed most room for improvement. However, for both types of care, opportunities for improvement were mostly limited. The CQ index reliably and validly captures dialysis patient experience. Overall, most care aspects showed limited room for improvement, mainly because patients participating in our study rated their experience to be optimal. To evaluate items with high priority, but with which relatively few patients have experience, more qualitative instruments should be considered.
  Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 02/2012; 27(8):3284-91. · 3.40 Impact Factor
• Article: Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies.

  Sabine N van der Veer, Kitty J Jager, Azri M Nache, Donald Richardson, Janet Hegarty, Cécile Couchoud, Nicolette F de Keizer, Charles R V Tomson
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Recent studies showed wide variation in the extent to which guidelines and other types of best practice have been implemented as part of routine health care. This is also true for the delivery of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for ESRD patients. Increasing uptake of best practice within such complex care systems requires an understanding of implementation strategies and specific quality improvement (QI) techniques. Therefore, we systematically reviewed over 5000 titles published since 1990 and included papers describing planned attempts to accelerate uptake of best RRT practice into daily care. This resulted in a list of 93 QI initiatives, categorized in order to expedite shared learning. The majority of the initiatives were executed within the domains of vascular access, nutrition, and anemia management. Strategies oriented at patients were most common and many initiatives pre-defined an improvement target before starting implementation. Of the 93 initiatives, 22 were sufficiently robust methodologically to be analyzed in more detail. Our results tend to support previous findings that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single strategies. Improving our understanding of how to successfully implement best practice can inform system-level change and is the only way to close the gap between knowledge on what works and the actual care delivered to ESRD patients. Research into implementation, using specific QI techniques, should therefore be given priority in future.
  Kidney International 07/2011; 80(10):1021-34. · 6.61 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Peter H J van der Voort

  Article: Evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of care: protocol for a cluster randomized trial in intensive care.

  Sabine N van der Veer, Maartje L G de Vos, Kitty J Jager, Peter H J van der Voort, Niels Peek, Gert P Westert, Wilco C Graafmans, Nicolette F de Keizer
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Feedback is potentially effective in improving the quality of care. However, merely sending reports is no guarantee that performance data are used as input for systematic quality improvement (QI). Therefore, we developed a multifaceted intervention tailored to prospectively analyzed barriers to using indicators: the Information Feedback on Quality Indicators (InFoQI) program. This program aims to promote the use of performance indicator data as input for local systematic QI. We will conduct a study to assess the impact of the InFoQI program on patient outcome and organizational process measures of care, and to gain insight into barriers and success factors that affected the program's impact. The study will be executed in the context of intensive care. This paper presents the study's protocol. We will conduct a cluster randomized controlled trial with intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. We will include ICUs that submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and that agree to allocate at least one intensivist and one ICU nurse for implementation of the intervention. Eligible ICUs (clusters) will be randomized to receive basic NICE registry feedback (control arm) or to participate in the InFoQI program (intervention arm). The InFoQI program consists of comprehensive feedback, establishing a local, multidisciplinary QI team, and educational outreach visits. The primary outcome measures will be length of ICU stay and the proportion of shifts with a bed occupancy rate above 80%. We will also conduct a process evaluation involving ICUs in the intervention arm to investigate their actual exposure to and experiences with the InFoQI program. The results of this study will inform those involved in providing ICU care on the feasibility of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention and its ability to accelerate systematic and local quality improvement. Although our study will be conducted within the domain of intensive care, we believe our conclusions will be generalizable to other settings that have a quality registry including an indicator set available. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50542146.
  Implementation Science 01/2011; 6:119. · 3.10 Impact Factor
• Article: Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers.

  Sabine N van der Veer, Nicolette F de Keizer, Anita C J Ravelli, Suzanne Tenkink, Kitty J Jager
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: To determine (1) how medical registries provide information feedback to health care professionals, (2) whether this feedback has any effect on the quality of care and (3) what the barriers and success factors are to the effectiveness of feedback. Original articles in English found in MEDLINE Pubmed covering the period January 1990 to August 2007. Titles and abstracts of 6223 original articles were independently screened by two reviewers to determine relevance for further review. We used a standardized data abstraction form to collect information on the feedback initiatives and their effectiveness. The effect of the feedback was only described for analytic papers, i.e. papers that attempted to objectively quantify the effect on the quality of care and to relate this effect to feedback as an intervention. For analysis of the effectiveness, we categorized the initiatives based on the number of elements added to the feedback. We included 53 papers, describing 50 feedback initiatives, of which 39 were part of a multifaceted approach. Our results confirm previous research findings that adding elements to a feedback strategy positively influences its effectiveness. We found 22 analytic studies, four of which found a positive effect on all outcome measures, eight found a mix of positive- and no effects and ten did not find any effects (neither positive nor negative). Of the 43 process of care measures evaluated in the analytic studies, 26 were positively affected by the feedback initiative. Of the 36 evaluated outcome of care measures, five were positively affected. The most frequently mentioned factors influencing the effectiveness of the feedback were: (trust in) quality of the data, motivation of the recipients, organizational factors and outcome expectancy of the feedback recipients. The literature on methods and effects of information feedback by medical registries is heterogeneous, making it difficult to draw definite conclusions on its effectiveness. However, the positive effects cannot be discarded. Although our review confirms findings from previous studies that process of care measures are more positively influenced by feedback than outcome of care measures, further research should attempt to identify outcome of care measures that are sensitive to behaviour change as a result of feedback strategies. Furthermore, future studies evaluating the effectiveness of feedback should include a more extensive description of their intervention in order to increase the reproducibility of feedback initiatives and the generalizability of the results.
  International Journal of Medical Informatics 02/2010; 79(5):305-23. · 2.41 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Peter H J van der Voort

  Article: Implementing quality indicators in intensive care units: exploring barriers to and facilitators of behaviour change.

  Maartje Lg de Vos, Sabine N van der Veer, Wilco C Graafmans, Nicolette F de Keizer, Kitty J Jager, Gert P Westert, Peter Hj van der Voort
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: : Quality indicators are increasingly used in healthcare but there are various barriers hindering their routine use. To promote the use of quality indicators, an exploration of the barriers to and facilitating factors for their implementation among healthcare professionals and managers of intensive care units (ICUs) is advocated. All intensivists, ICU nurses, and managers (n = 142) working at 54 Dutch ICUs who participated in training sessions to support future implementation of quality indicators completed a questionnaire on perceived barriers and facilitators. Three types of barriers related to knowledge, attitude, and behaviour were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Behaviour-related barriers such as time constraints were most prominent (Mean Score, MS = 3.21), followed by barriers related to knowledge and attitude (MS = 3.62; MS = 4.12, respectively). Type of profession, age, and type of hospital were related to knowledge and behaviour. The facilitating factor perceived as most important by intensivists was administrative support (MS = 4.3; p = 0.02); for nurses, it was education (MS = 4.0; p = 0.01), and for managers, it was receiving feedback (MS = 4.5; p = 0.001). Our results demonstrate that healthcare professionals and managers are familiar with using quality indicators to improve care, and that they have positive attitudes towards the implementation of quality indicators. Despite these facts, it is necessary to lower the barriers related to behavioural factors. In addition, as the barriers and facilitating factors differ among professions, age groups, and settings, tailored strategies are needed to implement quality indicators in daily practice.
  Implementation Science 01/2010; 5:52. · 3.10 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: PubMed Central

  Article: Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment.

  Erik Jan van Lieshout, Sabine N van der Veer, Reinout Hensbroek, Johanna C Korevaar, Margreeth B Vroom, Marcus J Schultz
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to assess and classify incidents of electromagnetic interference (EMI) by second-generation and third-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment. EMI was assessed with two General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) signals (900 MHz, 2 W, two different time-slot occupations) and one Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) signal (1,947.2 MHz, 0.2 W), corresponding to maximal transmit performance of mobile phones in daily practice, generated under controlled conditions in the proximity of 61 medical devices. Incidents of EMI were classified in accordance with an adjusted critical care event scale. A total of 61 medical devices in 17 categories (27 different manufacturers) were tested and demonstrated 48 incidents in 26 devices (43%); 16 (33%) were classified as hazardous, 20 (42%) as significant and 12 (25%) as light. The GPRS-1 signal induced the most EMI incidents (41%), the GRPS-2 signal induced fewer (25%) and the UMTS signal induced the least (13%; P < 0.001). The median distance between antenna and medical device for EMI incidents was 3 cm (range 0.1 to 500 cm). One hazardous incident occurred beyond 100 cm (in a ventilator with GRPS-1 signal at 300 cm). Critical care equipment is vulnerable to EMI by new-generation wireless telecommunication technologies with median distances of about 3 cm. The policy to keep mobile phones '1 meter' from the critical care bedside in combination with easily accessed areas of unrestricted use still seems warranted.
  Critical care (London, England) 01/2007; 11(5):R98. · 4.61 Impact Factor