Dataset Information

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) has potential for use as a patient-centered measure of the implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), but there is little research on the relationship between the PACIC and important behavioral and quality measures for patients with chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between PACIC scores and self-management behaviors, patient rating of their health care, and self-reported quality of life. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey with a 61% response rate. PARTICIPANTS: Included in the survey were 4,108 adults with diabetes, chronic pain, heart failure, asthma, or coronary artery disease in the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care program across 7 regions nationally. MEASUREMENTS: The PACIC was the main independent variable. Dependent variables included use of self-management resources, self-management behaviors such as regular exercise, self-reported adherence to medications, patient rating of their health care, and quality of life. RESULTS: PACIC scores were significantly, positively associated with all measures (odds ratio [ORs] ranging from 1.20 to 2.36) with the exception of self-reported medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the PACIC, a practical, patient-level assessment of CCM implementation, could be an important tool for health systems and other stakeholders looking to improve the quality of chronic disease care.

SUBMITTER: Schmittdiel J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2173922 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions.

Schmittdiel Julie J Mosen David M DM Glasgow Russell E RE Hibbard Judith J Remmers Carol C Bellows Jim J

Journal of general internal medicine 20071121 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) has potential for use as a patient-centered measure of the implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), but there is little research on the relationship between the PACIC and important behavioral and quality measures for patients with chronic conditions.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the relationship between PACIC scores and self-management behaviors, patient rating of their health care, and self-reported quality of life. ...[more]

PMID: 18030539

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Providing patient-centered care (PCC) during the last year of life (LYOL) can be challenging due to the complexity of the patients' medical, social and psychological needs, especially in case of chronic illnesses. Assessing PCC can be helpful in identifying areas for improvements. Since not all patients can be surveyed, a questionnaire for proxy informants was developed in order to retrospectively assess patient-centeredness in care during the whole LYOL. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and validity of an adapted version of the German Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) for surveying bereaved persons in order to assess PCC during the decedents' LYOL. METHODS:The German PACIC short form (11 items) was adapted to a nine-item version for surveying bereaved persons on the decedent's LYOL (PACIC-S9-Proxy). Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. The PACIC adaptation and validation was part of a cross-sectional survey in the region of Cologne. Participants were recruited through self-selection and active recruitment by practice partners. Sociodemographic characteristics and missing data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to assess the structure of the PACIC-S9-Proxy. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS:Of the 351 informants who participated in the survey, 230 (65.52%) considered their decedent to have suffered from chronic illness prior to death. 193 of these informants (83.91%) completed ?5 items of the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. The least answered item was item (74.09%) was item 4 (encouragement to group & classes for coping). The most frequently answered item (96.89%) was item 2 (satisfaction with care organization). Informants rated the item" Given a copy of their treatment plan" highest (mean 3.96), whereas "encouragement to get to a specific group or class to cope with the condition" (mean 1.74) was rated lowest. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. A unidimensional structure of the questionnaire was found (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.86, Bartlett's test for sphericity p?<?0.001), with items' factor loadings ranging from 0.46 to 0.82. CONCLUSIONS:The nine-item questionnaire can be used as efficient tool for assessing PCC during the LYOL retrospectively and by proxies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011925 ) on 13 June 2017.

Project description:BackgroundThe Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a US measure of chronic illness quality of care, based on the influential Chronic Care Model (CCM). It measures a number of aspects of care, including patient activation; delivery system design and decision support; goal setting and tailoring; problem-solving and contextual counselling; follow-up and coordination. Although there is developing evidence of the utility of the scale, there is little evidence about its performance in the United Kingdom (UK). We present preliminary data on the psychometric performance of the PACIC in a large sample of UK patients with long-term conditions.MethodWe collected PACIC, demographic, clinical and quality of care data from patients with long-term conditions across 38 general practices, as part of a wider longitudinal study. We assess rates of missing data, present descriptive and distributional data, assess internal consistency, and test validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and through associations between PACIC scores, patient characteristics and related measures.ResultsThere was evidence that rates of missing data were high on PACIC (9.6% - 15.9%), and higher than on other scales used in the same survey. Most PACIC sub-scales showed reasonable levels of internal consistency (alpha?=?0.68 - 0.94), responses did not demonstrate high skewness levels, and floor effects were more frequent (up to 30.4% on the follow up and co-ordination subscale) than ceiling effects (generally <5%). PACIC demonstrated preliminary evidence of validity in terms of measures of long-term condition care. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the five factor PACIC structure proposed by the scale developers did not fit the data: reporting separate factor scores may not always be appropriate.ConclusionThe importance of improving care for long-term conditions means that the development and validation of measures is a priority. The PACIC scale has demonstrated potential utility in this regard, but further assessment is required to assess low levels of completion of the scale, and to explore the performance of the scale in predicting outcomes and assessing the effects of interventions.

Project description:To identify actionable processes of care, quality indicators, or performance measures and their evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members including themes relating to patient/family experience. Data Sources:Two authors independently searched electronic, systemic review, and trial registration databases (inception to November 2016). Study Selection:We included studies with an ICU length of stay of greater than or equal to 7 days as an inclusion criterion and reported actionable processes of care; quality improvement indicators, measures, or tools; or patient/family experience. We excluded case series/reports of less than 10 patients. Data Extraction:Paired authors independently extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. Data Synthesis:We screened 13,130 references identifying 114 primary studies and 102 relevant reviews. Primary studies reported data on 24,252 participants; median (interquartile range) sample size of 70 (32-182). We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care, the most commonly investigated related to categories of 1) weaning methods (21 studies; 27 reviews); 2) rehabilitation, mobilization, and physiotherapy (20 studies; 40 reviews); and 3) provision of information, prognosis, and family communication (14 studies; 11 reviews). Processes with limited evidence were generally more patient-centered categories such as communication, promotion of sleep, symptom management, or family support. Of the 21 randomized controlled trials, only two were considered at low risk of bias across all six domains, whereas just two cohort studies and one qualitative study were considered of high quality. Conclusions:We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their families, with most frequently studied processes relating to weaning, rehabilitation/mobilization, and family communication. Qualitative studies highlighted the need to address psychologic needs and distressing symptoms as well as enabling patient communication. Our findings are informative for clinicians and decision-makers when planning high-quality patient and family-focused care.

Project description:IntroductionFollowing a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Dataset Information

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions.

Publications

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets