Hospitals in most European countries are paid on the basis of diagnosis related groups. Reinhard Busse and colleagues find much variation within and between systems and argue that they could be improved if countries learnt from each other

Patients and policy makers alike have high expectations for the use of digital technologies as tools to improve health care service quality at a sustainable cost. Many countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are investing in telemedicine initiatives, and a large and growing body of peer-reviewed studies on the topic has developed, as a consequence. Nonetheless, telemedicine is still not used at scale within the OECD. Seeking to provide a snapshot of the evidence on the use of telemedicine in the OECD, this umbrella review of systematic reviews summarizes findings on four areas of policy relevance: clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience, and implementation. This review followed a prior written, unregistered protocol. Four databases (PubMed/Medline, CRD, and Cochrane Library) were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published between January 2014 and February 2019. Based on the inclusion criteria, 98 systematic reviews were selected for analysis. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not conducted. The quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Most reviews (n = 53) focused on effectiveness, followed by cost-effectiveness (n = 18), implementation (n = 17) and patient experience (n = 15). Eighty-three percent of clinical effectiveness reviews found telemedicine at least as effective as face-to-face care, and thirty-nine percent of cost-effectivenss reviews found telemedicine to be cost saving or cost-effective. Patients reported high acceptance of telemedicine and the most common barriers to implementation were usability and lack of reimbursement. However, the methodological quality of most reviews was low to critically low which limits generalizability and applicability of findings. This umbrella review finds that telemedicine interventions can improve glycemic control in diabetic patients; reduce mortality and hospitalization due to chronic heart failure; help patients manage pain and increase their physical activity; improve mental health, diet quality and nutrition; and reduce exacerbations associated with respiratory diseases like asthma. In certain disease and specialty areas, telemedicine may be a less effective way to deliver care. While there is evidence that telemedicine can be cost-effective, generalizability is hindered by poor quality and reporting standards. This umbrella review also finds that patients report high levels of acceptance and satisfaction with telemedicine interventions, but that important barriers to wider use remain.

Background: The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims: Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACT including a Resource Directory (RD), versus RD-only. Methods: A primarily online, observer-blind randomised controlled trial comparing REACT (including RD) with RD only (registration ISRCTN72019945). Participants were UK relatives aged > = 16, with high distress (assessed using the GHQ-28), and actively help-seeking, individually randomised, and assessed online. Primary outcome was relatives’ distress (GHQ-28) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wellbeing, support, costs and user feedback. Results: We recruited 800 relatives (REACT = 399; RD only = 401) with high distress at baseline (GHQ-28 REACT mean 40.3, SD 14.6; RD only mean 40.0, SD 14.0). Median time spent online on REACT was 50.8 min (IQR 12.4–172.1) versus 0.5 min (IQR 0–1.6) on RD only. Retention to primary follow-up (24 weeks) was 75% (REACT n = 292 (73.2%); RD-only n = 307 (76.6%)). Distress decreased in both groups by 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups (− 1.39, 95% CI -3.60, 0.83, p = 0.22). Estimated cost of delivering REACT was £62.27 per person and users reported finding it safe, acceptable and convenient. There were no adverse events or reported side effects. Conclusions: REACT is an inexpensive, acceptable, and safe way to deliver NICE-recommended support for relatives. However, for highly distressed relatives it is no more effective in reducing distress (GHQ-28) than a comprehensive online resource directory. Trial registration: ISRCTN72019945 prospectively registered 19/11/2015.

Background: Strengthening health-care effectiveness, increasing accessibility and improving resilience are key goals in the upcoming European Union health-care agenda. European Collaboration for Health-Care Optimization (ECHO), an international research project on health-care performance assessment funded by the seventh framework programme, has provided evidence and methodology to allow the attainment of those goals. This article aims at describing ECHO, analysing its main instruments and discussing some of the ECHO policy implications. Methods: Using patient-level administrative data, a series of observational studies (ecological and cross-section with associated time-series analyses) were conducted to analyze population and patients’ exposure to health care. Operationally, several performance dimensions such as health-care inequalities, quality, safety and efficiency were analyzed using a set of validated indicators. The main instruments in ECHO were: (i) building a homogeneous data infrastructure; (ii) constructing coding crosswalks to allow comparisons between countries; (iii) making geographical units of analysis comparable; and (iv) allowing comparisons through the use of common benchmarks. Conclusion: ECHO has provided some innovations in international comparisons of health-care performance, mainly derived from the massive pooling of patient-level data and thus: (i) has expanded the usual approach based on average figures, providing insight into within and across country variation at various meaningful policy levels, (ii) the important effort made on data homogenization has increased comparability, increasing stakeholders’ reliance on data and improving the acceptance of findings and (iii) has been able to provide more flexible and reliable benchmarking, allowing stakeholders to make critical use of the evidence.

Contemporary patterns of global food trade necessitate cross-border communication between government authorities when unsafe food enters international commerce. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN), established in 2004, facilitates urgent communication between >600 members from 188 of the 194 FAO and WHO Member States around the world and supports the strengthening of food safety systems in an effort to mitigate the global burden of foodborne disease. For nearly 15 years, INFOSAN has been operating as a global, virtual community of practice (CoP), fostering knowledge transfer and exchange between members, and enabling crucial international communication during food safety emergencies. During this time, a number of important partnerships have been forged, including with other networks like PulseNet International. Complementarity, and cooperation between global networks like INFOSAN and PulseNet is vital to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of global efforts to curb foodborne illness. Since 2011, detailed data related to the patterns of information exchange during 293 food safety emergencies communicated through INFOSAN have been documented systematically. An analysis of these data reveals that a relatively limited number of active members from a select group of Member States contribute the majority of information exchanged through the network. For example, nine (5%) Member States were each involved in 24 or more food safety events communicated through INFOSAN between 2011 and 2017, whereas 123 (65%) Member States were involved in three events or less, including 36 (19%) involved in none. These data also demonstrate that although the overall responsiveness of members during emergencies has improved in recent years, impediments to rapid and efficient information sharing still persist. A number of potential barriers to active participation in INFOSAN have been hypothesized, but members themselves have not been conferred with on their relative importance. As a member-driven network, future research to investigate the experiences of INFOSAN members in a rigorous and systematic manner is recommended. Such work could illuminate the specific areas in which to introduce operational shifts by the INFOSAN Secretariat, to strengthen the global CoP, increase the value of INFOSAN among members, and have a robust and meaningful impact at country level to reduce the burden of foodborne disease globally.