BackgroundAlthough local initiatives commonly express a wish to improve population health and wellbeing using a population health management (PHM) approach, implementation is challenging and... Show moreBackgroundAlthough local initiatives commonly express a wish to improve population health and wellbeing using a population health management (PHM) approach, implementation is challenging and existing tools have either a narrow focus or lack transparency. This has created demand for practice-oriented guidance concerning the introduction and requirements of PHM.MethodsExisting knowledge from scientific literature was combined with expert opinion obtained using an adjusted RAND UCLA appropriateness method, which consisted of six Dutch panels in three Delphi rounds, followed by two rounds of validation by an international panel.ResultsThe Dutch panels identified 36 items relevant to PHM, in addition to the 97 items across six elements of PHM derived from scientific literature. Of these 133 items, 101 were considered important and 32 ambiguous. The international panel awarded similar scores for 128 of 133 items, with only 5 items remaining unvalidated. Combining literature and expert opinion gave extra weight and validity to the items.DiscussionIn developing a maturity index to help assess the use and progress of PHM in health regions, input from experts counterbalanced a previous skewedness of item distribution across the PHM elements and the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). Participant expertise also improved our understanding of successful PHM implementation, as well as how the six PHM elements are best constituted in a first iteration of a maturity index. Limitations included the number of participants in some panels and ambiguity of language. Further development should focus on item clarity, adoption in practice and item interconnectedness.ConclusionBy employing scientific literature enriched with expert opinion, this study provides new insight for both science and practice concerning the composition of PHM elements that influence PHM implementation. This will help guide practices in their quest to implement PHM. Show less
IntroductionDespite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this... Show moreIntroductionDespite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.MethodsAn online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.ResultsOverall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.ConclusionThis survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence. Show less
Introduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently under diagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this... Show moreIntroduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently under diagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.Methods: An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.Results: Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had > 15 years of experience and 35% treated > 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.Conclusion: This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of IAP and EPC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Honing, G.H.M.; Martini, C.H.; Bom, A.; Velzen, M. van; Niesters, M.; Aarts, L.P.H.J.; ... ; Boon, M. 2019
