Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Sabine N. van der Veer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Sabine N. van der Veer.


International Journal of Medical Informatics | 2010

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

OBJECTIVE 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. DATA SOURCES Original articles in English found in MEDLINE Pubmed covering the period January 1990 to August 2007. REVIEW METHOD Titles and abstracts of 6223 original articles were independently screened by two reviewers to determine relevance for further review. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.


Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation | 2015

Clinical Practice Guideline on management of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease stage 3b or higher (eGFR <45 mL/min)

Henk J. G. Bilo; Luís Coentrão; Cécile Couchoud; Adrian Covic; Johan De Sutter; Christiane Drechsler; Luigi Gnudi; David Goldsmith; James G. Heaf; Olof Heimbürger; Kitty J. Jager; Hakan Nacak; María José Soler; Liesbeth Van Huffel; Charles R.V. Tomson; Steven Van Laecke; Laurent Weekers; Andrzej Więcek; Davide Bolignano; Maria Haller; Evi V Nagler; Ionut Nistor; Sabine N. van der Veer; Wim Van Biesen

Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent and is considered a rapidly growing concern for healthcare systems. Besides the cardiovascular complications, diabetes mellitus is associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD in patients with diabetes can be caused by true diabetic nephropathy, but can also be caused indirectly by diabetes, e.g. due to polyneuropathic bladder dysfunction, increased incidence of relapsing urinary tract infections or macrovascular angiopathy. However, many patients who develop CKD due to a cause other than diabetes will develop ormay already have diabetes mellitus. Finally, many drugs that are used for management of CKDs, e.g. corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors, can cause diabetes. Despite the strong interplay between diabetes and CKD, the management of patients with diabetes and CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR <45 mL/min) remains problematic. Many guidance-providing documents have been produced on the management of patients with diabetes to prevent or delay the progression to CKD, mostly defined as the presence of microand macro-albuminuria. However, none of these documents specifically deal with the management of patients with CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR <45 mL/min). There is a paucity of well-designed, prospective studies in this population, as many studies exclude either patients with diabetes, or with CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR <45 mL/min), or both. This limits the evidence base to these approaches. In addition, due to some new developments in this area, the advisory board of ERBP decided that a guideline on the management of patients with diabetes and CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR <45 mL/min) was needed and timely:


Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation | 2015

How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting

Kate Breckenridge; Hillary L. Bekker; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sabine N. van der Veer; Denise Abbott; Serge Briançon; Ron Cullen; Liliana Garneata; Kitty J. Jager; Kjersti Lønning; Wendy Metcalfe; Rachael L. Morton; Fliss Murtagh; Karl G. Prütz; Sue Robertson; Ivan Rychlik; Steffan Schon; Linda Sharp; Elodie Speyer; Francesca Tentori; Fergus Caskey

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial.


Implementation Science | 2010

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

Maartje L. G. de Vos; Sabine N. van der Veer; Wilco C. Graafmans; Nicolette F. de Keizer; Kitty J. Jager; G.P. Westert; Peter H. J. van der Voort

BackgroundQuality 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.MethodsAll 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).ResultsBehaviour-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).ConclusionsOur 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.


PLOS ONE | 2014

Patients’ Perceptions of Information and Education for Renal Replacement Therapy: An Independent Survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on Information and Support on Renal Replacement Therapy

Wim Van Biesen; Sabine N. van der Veer; Mark Murphey; Olga Löblová; Simon J. Davies

Background Selection of an appropriate renal replacement modality is of utmost importance for patients with end stage renal disease. Previous studies showed provision of information to and free modality choice by patients to be suboptimal. Therefore, the European Kidney Patients’ Federation (CEAPIR) explored European patients’ perceptions regarding information, education and involvement on the modality selection process. Methods CEAPIR developed a survey, which was disseminated by the national kidney patient organisations in Europe. Results In total, 3867 patients from 36 countries completed the survey. Respondents were either on in-centre haemodialysis (53%) or had a functioning graft (38%) at the time of survey. The majority (78%) evaluated the general information about kidney disease and treatment as helpful, but 39% did not recall being told about alternative treatment options than their current one. Respondents were more often satisfied with information provided on in-centre haemodialysis (90%) and transplantation (87%) than with information provided on peritoneal dialysis (79%) or home haemodialysis (61%), and were more satisfied with information from health care professionals vs other sources such as social media. Most (75%) felt they had been involved in treatment selection, 29% perceived they had no free choice. Involvement in modality selection was associated with enhanced satisfaction with treatment (OR 3.13; 95% CI 2.72–3.60). Many respondents (64%) could not remember receiving education on how to manage their kidney disease in daily life. Perceptions on information seem to differ between countries. Conclusions Kidney patients reported to be overall satisfied with the information they received on their disease and treatment, although information seemed mostly to have been focused on one modality. Patients involved in modality selection were more satisfied with their treatment. However, in the perception of the patients, the freedom to choose an alternative modality showed room for improvement.


Kidney International | 2011

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 Nache; Donald Richardson; Janet Hegarty; Cécile Couchoud; Nicolette F. de Keizer; Charles R.V. Tomson

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.


Journal of Vascular Access | 2015

Barriers to adopting a fistula-first policy in Europe: an international survey among national experts

Sabine N. van der Veer; Pietro Ravani; Luís Coentrão; Richard Fluck; Werner Kleophas; Laura Labriola; Susanne H. Hoischen; Marlies Noordzij; Kitty J. Jager; Wim Van Biesen

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore how vascular access care was reimbursed, promoted, and organised at the national level in European and neighbouring countries. Methods An electronic survey among national experts to collect country-level data. Results Forty-seven experts (response rate, 76%) from 37 countries participated. Experts from 23 countries reported that 50% or less of patients received routine pre-operative imaging of vessels. Nephrologists placed catheters and created fistulas in 26 and 8 countries, respectively. Twenty-one countries had a fee per created access; the reported fee for catheter placement was never higher than for fistula creation. As the number of haemodialysis patients in a centre increased, more countries had a dedicated coordinator or multidisciplinary team responsible for vascular access maintenance at the centre-level; in 11 countries, responsibility was always with individual nephrologists, independent of a centres size. In 23 countries, dialysis centres shared vascular access care resources, with facilitation from a service provider in 4. In most countries, national campaigns (n = 35) or educational programmes (n = 29) had addressed vascular access-related topics; 19 countries had some form of training for creating fistulas. Forty experts considered the current evidence base robust enough to justify a fistula-first policy, but only 13 believed that more than 80% of nephrologists in their country would attempt a fistula in a 75-year-old woman with comorbidities. Conclusions Suboptimal access to surgical resources, lack of dedicated training of clinicians, limited routine use of pre-operative diagnostic imaging and patient characteristics primarily emerged as potential barriers to adopting a fistula-first policy in Europe.


Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation | 2014

Measuring the quality of renal care: things to keep in mind when selecting and using quality indicators

Sabine N. van der Veer; Wim Van Biesen; Cécile Couchoud; Charles R.V. Tomson; Kitty J. Jager

This educational paper discusses a variety of indicators that can be used to measure the quality of care in renal medicine. Based on what aspect of care they reflect, indicators can be grouped into four main categories: structure, process, surrogate outcome and outcome indicators. Each category has its own advantages and disadvantages, and we give some pointers on how to balance these pros and cons while taking into account the aim of the measurement initiative. Especially within initiatives that link payment or reputation to indicator measurement, this balancing should be done with utmost care to avoid potential, unintended consequences. Furthermore, we suggest consideration of (i) a causal chain-i.e. subsequent aspects of care connected by evidence-based links-as a starting point for composing a performance indicator set and (ii) adequate case-mix adjustment, not only of (surrogate) outcomes, but also of process indicators in order to obtain fair comparisons between facilities and within facilities over time.


PLOS ONE | 2015

Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making – An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians

Sabine N. van der Veer; Maria Haller; C.A.C.M. Pittens; J.E.W. Broerse; Clare Castledine; Maurizio Gallieni; Nicholas Inston; Anna Marti Monros; Niels Peek; Wim Van Biesen

Background Many decisions around vascular access for haemodialysis warrant a collaborative treatment decision-making process, involving both clinician and patient. Yet, patients’ experiences in this regard have been suboptimal. Although clinical practice guidelines could facilitate collaborative decision making, they often focus on the clinicians’ side of the process, while failing to address the patients’ perspective. The objective of this study was to explore and compare kidney patients’ and clinicians’ views on what vascular access-related decisions deserved priority for developing guidelines that will contribute to optimizing collaborative decision making. Methods In the context of updating their vascular access guideline, European Renal Best Practice surveyed an international panel of 85 kidney patients, 687 nephrologists, 194 nurses, and 140 surgeons/radiologists. In an electronic questionnaire, respondents rated 42 vascular access-related topics on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on mean standardized ratings, we compared priority ratings between patients and each clinician group. Results Selection of access type and site, as well as prevention of access infections received top priority across all respondent groups. Patients generally assigned higher priority to decisions regarding managing adverse effects of arteriovenous access and patient involvement in care, while clinicians more often prioritized decisions around sustaining patients’ access options, technical aspects of access creation, and optimizing fistula maturation and patency. Conclusion Apart from identifying the most pressing knowledge gaps, our study provides pointers for developing guidelines that may improve healthcare professionals’ understanding of when to involve patients along the vascular access pathway.


International Urology and Nephrology | 2016

Priority topics for European multidisciplinary guidelines on the management of chronic kidney disease in older adults.

Sabine N. van der Veer; Wim Van Biesen; Pascale Bernaert; Davide Bolignano; Edwina A. Brown; Adrian Covic; Ken Farrington; Kitty J. Jager; Jeroen P. Kooman; Juan F. Macías-Núñez; Andrew Mooney; Barbara C. van Munster; Eva Topinkova; Nele Van Den Noortgate; Gerhard Wirnsberger; Jean-Pierre Michel; Ionut Nistor

PurposeTo identify and prioritize potential topics to be addressed in the development of European multidisciplinary guidelines on the management of chronic kidney disease stage 3b–5 in older patients.MethodsWe composed a list of 47 potential guideline topics by reviewing the literature, consulting online 461 nephrologists and 107 geriatricians, and obtaining expert input. A multidisciplinary panel of twelve experts then prioritized the topics during a face-to-face consensus meeting, following a nominal group technique structure with two voting rounds. Topics were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all important’) to 9 (‘critically important’).ResultsThe highest rating (median; range) was assigned to ‘Screening and referral’ (8.5; 2.0). Eight topics shared the second highest rating with a median priority score of 8.0 (2.0) and included ‘Starting dialysis or not’ and ‘Accurate assessment of renal function.’ ‘Targets for and treatment of diabetes’ received the lowest rating with (3.0; 6.0).ConclusionsThis joint initiative of the European Renal Association–European Dialysis Transplant Association (ERA–EDTA) and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) prioritized the development of guidance on interdisciplinary referral of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b–5. Future guidance will therefore focus on identifying prognostic scores to predict death and progression to end-stage renal disease, as well as accurate tests for assessment of renal function in older kidney patients. This will contribute to more informed treatment decision making in this growing patient population.

Collaboration


Dive into the Sabine N. van der Veer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Niels Peek

Manchester Academic Health Science Centre

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Wim Van Biesen

Ghent University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kitty J. Jager

Public Health Research Institute

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Maria Haller

Medical University of Vienna

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Paolo Fraccaro

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Iain Buchan

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Evi Nagler

Ghent University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge