Objectives: To assess the screenees' views on, and the psychological impact of, a family-based genetic screening programme for familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) and to evaluate non-participation. Methods: Self-administered questionnaires were filled out at the time of screening and after communication of the test result. Non-participants were interviewed by phone. Results: Of the people approached for screening, 2% did not participate. These 2% were not interested, had already been clinically diagnosed, or were afraid of insurance consequences. 677 screenees participated, of whom 215 (32%) tested FH positive. Less than 5% of the screenees were critical of the approach and the information provided. 20% of the screenees expressed feelings of social pressure. Effects on mood were minimal to absent, as were general 'quality of life' effects. Conclusions: Screening for FH is highly acceptable to screenees, although social pressure is prevalent. Only a small percentage of people being approached did not participate.@en

Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the current screening programme on Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) in relatives of diagnosed FH-patients in The Netherlands. Methods and Results: Data from 2229 screened FH-relatives, including age, sex, risk factor status and screening outcome, were combined with the Framingham risk function and national disease-specific cost data to arrive at a model-based comparison of survival and costs, with and without the screening programme. Cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for various treatment strategies, with no screening as reference. Costs per life year gained varied between 25·5- and 32-thousand Euros, depending upon the precise treatment strategy after a positive screen. The costs for screening (tracing the FH-positive individuals) were much lower than the follow-up costs (treatment), of which 80% were costs for statins. Consequently, the costs per life year gained of alternative screening programmes are about the same. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness ratio of FH screening is within the range requiring explicit political consideration in The Netherlands. As the costs of statin treatment are the single most important determinant of costs, policy decisions reduce to decisions on the acceptability of statin treatment for this risk group. Pending major changes in statin price, clear guidelines should be developed on how screen positive individuals should be treated, since not all of them have an elevated cholesterol level.@en

Conclusions: Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indicator is intended for accountability or pay for performance. We recommend investing resources in accurate data registration, improved indicator description, and bundling outcome measures to provide a more complete picture of hospital care.Introduction: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used for both quality improvement and cost control. However, the validity of readmission rates as a measure of quality of hospital care is not evident. We aimed to give an overview of the different methodological aspects in the definition and measurement of readmission rates that need to be considered when interpreting readmission rates as a reflection of quality of care.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review, using the bibliographic databases Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of- Science, Cochrane central and PubMed for the period of January 2001 to May 2013.Results: The search resulted in 102 included papers. We found that definition of the context in which readmissions are used as a quality indicator is crucial. This context includes the patient group and the specific aspects of care of which the quality is aimed to be assessed. Methodological flaws like unreliable data and insufficient case-mix correction may confound the comparison of readmission rates between hospitals. Another problem occurs when the basic distinction between planned and unplanned readmissions cannot be made. Finally, the multi-faceted nature of quality of care and the correlation between readmissions and other outcomes limit the indicator's validity.@en