IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0310799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ perspectives on capturing societal cost savings from a quality improvement initiative: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Daniëlle Kroon
  • Simone A van Dulmen
  • Niek W Stadhouders
  • Jonas Rosenstok
  • Baukje van den Heuvel
  • Gert P Westert
  • Rudolf B Kool
  • Patrick P T Jeurissen

Abstract

Background: Besides improving the quality of care, quality improvement initiatives often also intend to produce cost savings. An example is prehabilitation, which can reduce complication rates and the length of stay in the hospital. However, the process from utilization reductions to actual societal cost savings remains uncertain in practice. Our aim was to identify barriers and facilitators throughout this process. We used the implementation of prehabilitation in a Dutch hospital as a test case. Methods: We held 20 semi-structured interviews between June and November 2023. Eighteen stakeholders were affiliated with the hospital and two with different health insurers. Nine interviews were held face-to-face and 11 via Microsoft Teams. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The first transcripts were inductively coded by two authors, the subsequent transcripts by one and checked by another. Differences were resolved through discussion. Results: We identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer expenses. All participants expected that the excess capacity will be used for other priorities. This was perceived as highly valuable and as an efficiency gain. Other barriers to capture savings included the fear of losing resilience, flexibility, status and revenue. Misalignment between service contracts among hospitals and insurers can hinder the ability to financially incentivize cost reductions. Additionally, some contract types can hinder the transfer of hospital savings to insurers. Identified facilitators included shared savings agreements, an explicit strategy targeting all stages, and labor shortage, among others. Conclusion: This study systematically describes barriers and facilitators that prevent translating quality improvement initiatives into societal cost savings. Stakeholders expect that any saved capacity will be used for other priorities, including providing care due to the increasing demand. Capturing any cash savings does not occur automatically, emphasizing the need for a strategy targeting all stages.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniëlle Kroon & Simone A van Dulmen & Niek W Stadhouders & Jonas Rosenstok & Baukje van den Heuvel & Gert P Westert & Rudolf B Kool & Patrick P T Jeurissen, 2024. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on capturing societal cost savings from a quality improvement initiative: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310799
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310799
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310799&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0310799?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.