Table 2 Stakeholder positions concerning the task substitution of person and setting before and after GFU establishment
| Â | Â | Theory 1: closed window | Theory 2: unclear returns on investments | Theory 3: power position - level interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Before GFU establishment | Glaucoma Specialists | High workload, increasing demand for glaucoma care. | Workload release, decreasing the waiting list, more challenging work. | High power position and high interest for a successful task substitution. |
Management REH | Increased competition on volume. | Increase in volume of (new) patients. | Medium power position and high interest for a successful task substitution. | |
Primary care optometrists | Competition with optical chains, chance to professionalize. | Increase in volume of (new) patients. | Low power position and high interest for a successful task substitution. | |
Patients | Were not involved at the start. | More flexible appointments and more time per appointment. | Medium power position and medium interest for a successful task substitution. | |
Dutch Health Care Authority / Health insurers | Were not involved at the start. | Care would possibly become less expensive | High power position and unclear interest for a successful task substitution. | |
GFU employees | Were not involved at the start. | Â | Low power position and low interest for a successful task substitution. | |
After GFU establishment | Glaucoma Specialists | Release of workload due to GFU. | The establishment of the GFU already fulfilled their goals. | Reduction of interest for a successful task substitution. |
Management REH | Better alternative was found through cooperation with optical chain. | Disappointing increase in volume due to cooperation with OCR. Alternative was found. | Reduction of interest for a successful task substitution. | |
Primary care optometrists | Cooperation remained on the same level. | Increase in new patients differed among optometrists. | Reduction of chance to strengthen relationship with glaucoma specialists | |
Patients | GFU resulted in more time per patient, and care in a familiar setting. | Â | Reduction of interest for a successful task substitution. | |
NZA / Health insurers | Quality of care in GFU was good. | Â | No changes in interest due to establishment of GFU. | |
| Â | GFU employees | Improved relationship with glaucoma specialists and more satisfying work. | The consequences of starting task substitution for the GFU were unclear. | Increase of power position. |