Van Paul
Paul Van Royen, MD, PhD, is Professor Family Medicine within the Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. He has more than 30 years academic expertise in clinical general practice and research. His academic work is directed at teaching and research in primary care. He is co-ordinator of several teaching modules and programs, at undergraduate levels as well as graduate and postgraduate levels. He was/is involved in several research projects, including several EU-funded projects, within primary care, on respiratory infections and antibiotic prescribing, medical decision making, medical education, health care organization and data handling. He is author of more than 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and reviewer of different scientific journals. At his department, he has developed a research centre with a strong expertise in qualitative research and systematic reviews. He is also co-ordinator of the Clinical Guidelines project for primary care in Belgium.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Van Paul
Quality, privacy, and safety, major elements of Connected Health, were evident policy concerns in the Connected Health context. Attention is paid as to how the healthcare systems are evaluated. Evaluation methods and responsibilities range from macro state-level evaluation to more dispersed local evaluation. The constant evolution of European healthcare is reflected in the changing methods of evaluation in countries such as Norway, Greece, Malta, and Serbia.
The vast majority (almost 80%) of respondent countries have eHealth strategies in place or are working on implementing such strategies. In general, e-prescribing and Electronic Health Records are the most common forms of Connected Health activities throughout Europe. There is a clear distinction between patient and consultant usages of these forms of Connected Health. A major issue, especially with the creation of Electronic Health Records, has been ensuring that they are safe and secure and that privacy is attainable. Health Insurance companies also make use of electronic patient records for the storage of and quick access to patient records.
Privacy is recognised as an important factor in the development of accessible patient databases. While two thirds of respondent countries rely on national data protection legislation to protect such databases, others have been more proactive and generated eHealth-specific legislation. Croatia, Germany, Slovenia, the UK, and Macedonia have all begun to recognise the need to draw up legislation which prioritises the protection of patient information recorded through these types of technologies. Public statements and political instruments directly address the topic of Connected Health, helping to protect patients while increasing their awareness of the Connected Health options. Websites and manifestos dedicated to health related activities in various countries are at the centre of this public awareness. Additionally, political parties in some of the respondent countries identify eHealth and Connected Health as an area for improvement in their own manifestos.
Of the nineteen respondents to the survey, fifteen countries contributed specific information on university based programmes that help to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of and in a position to utilise Connected Health. While few of the programmes focus solely on Connected Health, its inclusion in health and biomedical informatics courses ensures that it will be a part of these future healthcare providers’ understanding of the provision of healthcare. Awareness of Connected Health and the development of health literacy is not solely a concern at third level. Health literacy is a challenge across Europe as a whole. Ad hoc health literacy programmes have been proven to work in some countries, but the public’s infrequent exposure to these forms of literacy, such as television and poster campaigns, means that their benefit is often not fully felt in the long term. The role that Connected Health can play in the improving health literacy does not seem to have been realised, with most countries still relying on leaflets and information booklets to improve patients’ understanding of medical and health related issues. For those countries who actively and regularly promote health literacy, this is done through school systems and specific research communities.
Presenting the business and health models of the healthcare systems in each of the ENJECT respondent’s countries helps to develop an understanding of the level of priority placed upon Connected Health. The majority of European healthcare systems are organised through cooperation between private and public bodies. Their funding and finances primarily come from the public sector, with revenue created through direct and indirect taxes. eHealth models within these healthcare systems’ business models vary significantly across the region and are gradually becoming an accepted part of a healthcare system’s general business models.
To attain an understanding of its healthcare model and patient care pathways, each country has provided a case study of common illnesses. The difference in each country’s method of treatment of the same illness shows how each of the systems operate, with a clear focus on the funding of the treatment in each of the instances.
eHealth Records and digital prescriptions top the list of technically integrated systems at national and
regional levels enabling electronic systems to work across a variety of healthcare contexts. The unification of language and classification systems emerged as a major issue when considering the interoperability of eHealth.
Generally, the level of patient involvement in the design, delivery, and development of health related research programmes is on the increase. With 30% of the respondent countries having a system in place which encourages the inclusion of patients in the design and development of healthcare, this can be seen as a clear starting point for creating even more connected healthcare systems throughout Europe.
In summary, confusion abounds in the area of Connected Health – around wording, application, models, and systems. It involves a complete transformation of the healthcare system in a long-term play that requires dedicated resources and political will. Many of these elements are difficult to capture with data points being largely qualitative and non-comparable. Different countries are at different stages of readiness in terms of Connected Health – both in terms of its research and its implementation. The evaluation criteria employed in different circumstances and different geographies across Europe are neither clear nor standardised. The majority of states and regions are so engaged in the process of ensuring interoperability at a regional or national level that they have little time or attention left to focus on the thorny issue of international interoperability.
We recommend an agenda for future research in Connected Health for Europe that creates a shared language around health records and a database that would facilitate the development of a Connected Health or eHealth scorecard. We would support a common evaluation framework for Connected Health implementations that is multi-faceted, ranging from technology robustness to regulatory compliance, from economic sustainability to user acceptance, and including both qualitative and quantitative measures. There is evident confusion as to the application of existing rights in the context of Connected Health. We recommend an approach specific to eHealth that helps citizens, researchers, companies, and healthcare providers to understand how we live safely and privately in an era of healthcare data. We suggest that studying how some of the ENJECT countries have done this and distilling learnings and best practice from their experience could help to better design future guidelines and interpretations.
Multimorbidity, according to the World Health Organization, exists when there are two or
more chronic conditions in one patient. This definition seems inaccurate for the holistic
approach to Family Medicine (FM) and long-term care. To avoid this pitfall the European
General Practitioners Research Network (EGPRN) designed a comprehensive definition of
multimorbidity using a systematic literature review.
Objective
To translate that English definition into European languages and to validate the semantic,
conceptual and cultural homogeneity of the translations for further research.
Method
Forward translation of the EGPRN’s definition of multimorbidity followed by a Delphi consensus
procedure assessment, a backward translation and a cultural check with all teams to ensure the homogeneity of the translations in their national context. Consensus was defined
as 70% of the scores being higher than 6. Delphi rounds were repeated in each country
until a consensus was reached
Results
229 European medical expert FPs participated in the study. Ten consensual translations of
the EGPRN comprehensive definition of multimorbidity were achieved.
Conclusion
A comprehensive definition of multimorbidity is now available in English and ten European
languages for further collaborative research in FM and long-term care.