Patient-centred care in general dental practice--a systematic review of the literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Delivering improvements in quality is a key objective within most healthcare systems, and a view which has been widely embraced within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Within the NHS, quality is evaluated across three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, with the latter modelled on the Picker Principles of Patient-Centred Care (PCC). Quality improvement is an important feature of the current dental contract reforms in England, with "patient experience" likely to have a central role in the evaluation of quality. An understanding and appreciation of the evidence underpinning PCC within dentistry is highly relevant if we are to use this as a measure of quality in general dental practice.Methods
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the features of PCC relevant to dentistry and ascertain the current research evidence base underpinning its use as a measure of quality within general dental practice.Results
Three papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria and demonstrated the use of primary research to provide an understanding of the key features of PCC within dentistry. None of the papers identified were based in general dental practice and none of the three studies sought the views of patients. Some distinct differences were noted between the key features of PCC reported within the dental literature and those developed within the NHS Patient Experience Framework.Conclusions
This systematic review reveals a lack of understanding of PCC within dentistry, and in particular general dental practice. There is currently a poor evidence base to support the use of the current patient reported outcome measures as indicators of patient-centredness. Further research is necessary to understand the important features of PCC in dentistry and patients' views should be central to this research.
SUBMITTER: Mills I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4054911 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II-IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included 'patient-centred care', 'quality of life' and 'shared decision making'. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.
| S-EPMC4608978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe importance of 'whole person' or 'holistic' care is widely recognised, particularly with an increasing prevalence of chronic multimorbidity internationally. This approach to care is a defining feature of general practice. However, its precise meaning remains ambiguous. We aimed to determine how the term 'whole person' care is understood by general practitioners (GPs), and whether it is synonymous with '[w]holistic' and 'biopsychosocial' care.DesignSystematic literature review.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, Science.gov (Health and Medicine database), Google Scholar and included studies' reference lists were searched with an unlimited date range. Systematic or literature reviews, original research, theoretical articles or books/book chapters; specific to general practice; relevant to the research question; and published in English were included. Included literature was critically appraised, and data were extracted and analysed using thematic synthesis.ResultsFifty publications were included from 4297 non-duplicate records retrieved. Six themes were identified: a multidimensional, integrated approach; the importance of the therapeutic relationship; acknowledging doctors' humanity; recognising patients' individual personhood; viewing health as more than absence of disease; and employing a range of treatment modalities. Whole person, biopsychosocial and holistic terminology were often used interchangeably, but were not synonymous.ConclusionsWhole person, holistic and biopsychosocial terminology are primarily characterised by a multidimensional approach to care and incorporate additional elements described above. Whole person care probably represents the closest representation of the basis for general practice. Health systems aiming to provide whole person care need to address the challenge of integrating the care of other health professionals, and maintaining the patient-doctor relationship central to the themes identified. Further research is required to clarify the representativeness of the findings, and the relative importance GPs' assign to each theme.Prospero registration numberCRD42017058824.
| S-EPMC6303638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRising demand for healthcare continues to impact all sectors of the health service. As a result of the growing ageing population and the burden of chronic disease, healthcare has become more complex, and the need for more efficient management of specialist medication across the healthcare interface is of paramount importance. With the rising number of pharmacists working in primary care in clinical roles, is this a role that pharmacists could support to ensure the successful execution of shared care agreement (SCA) in primary care for these patients?Aim of the reviewSystematic review to identify activities and assess the interventions provided by pharmacists in primary care on SCA provision and how it affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients.MethodPrimary studies in English which tested the intervention or obtained views of stakeholders related to pharmacist input to shared care agreement within primary care were included. The following electronic databases were systematically searched from the date of inception to November 2021: AMED®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), EMBASE®, EMCARE®, Google Scholar, HMIC®, MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Scopus and Web of Science®. Grey literature sources were also searched. The search was adapted according to the respective database-specific search tools. It was searched using a combination of Medical Subject Heading terms (MeSH), free-text search terms and Boolean operators.ResultsA total of 5244 titles/abstracts were screened after duplicates were removed, and 64 full articles were assessed for eligibility. On examination of full text, no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for further research to evaluate how pharmacists in general practice can support the safe and effective integration of specialist medication in primary care with the use of SCA.Systematic review registrationNIHR PROSPERO No: 2020 CRD42020165363 .
| S-EPMC9091138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe shift to the patient-centred care (PCC) model as a healthcare delivery paradigm calls for systematic measurement and evaluation. In an attempt to develop patient-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), this study aimed to identify quality indicators that can be used to measure PCC.MethodsDesign: scoping review.Data sourcesstudies were identified through searching seven electronic databases and the grey literature. Search terms included quality improvement, quality indicators, healthcare quality and PCC. Eligibility Criteria: articles were included if they mentioned development and/or implementation of PC-QIs.Data extraction and synthesisextracted data included study characteristics (country, year of publication and type of study/article), patients' inclusion in the development of indicators and type of patient populations and point of care if applicable (eg, in-patient, out-patient and primary care).ResultsA total 184 full-text peer-reviewed articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion; of these, 9 articles were included in this review. From the non-peer-reviewed literature, eight documents met the criteria for inclusion in this study. This review revealed the heterogeneity describing and defining the nature of PC-QIs. Most PC-QIs were presented as PCC measures and identified as guidelines, surveys or recommendations, and therefore cannot be classified as actual PC-QIs. Out of 502 ways to measure PCC, only 25 were considered to be actual PC-QIs. None of the identified articles implemented the quality indicators in care settings.ConclusionThe identification of PC-QIs is a key first step in laying the groundwork to develop evidence-based PC-QIs. Research is needed to continue the development and implementation of PC-QIs for healthcare quality improvement.
| S-EPMC6326310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient centred care is commonly recommended in clinical practice guidelines to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Identifying measurement tools used to assess healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centered care and determining their attitudes is the first step to ensuring patient centred care is provided in the future. The primary aim of this review was to describe the measurement tools used to assess healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care. The secondary aim was to quantify healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care.MethodsAn electronic database search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception until March 1, 2021, with combined terms relating to 'patient centred care', 'attitudes', and 'healthcare students'. Studies that quantitatively assessed healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care were included. Measurement tools used in the included studies were qualitatively described. Meta-analysis was conducted to quantify healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care and assess the respective influence of gender, profession, and study geographical location on healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care.ResultsThe electronic search identified 3948 total studies. One hundred twenty-nine full texts were screened, and 49 studies were included. There were 16 measurement tools used to assess healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centered care. Most studies (53%, n = 26) used the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) to assess patient centered care. Meta-analyses of 20 studies with 26 total groups resulted in a pooled mean PPOS score of 4.16 on a 0-6 scale (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 3.95, 4.37), indicating low attitudes towards patient centered care. Additional analyses found that women have significantly higher attitudes towards patients centred care than men (pooled effect 0.14 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.23], n = 8 studies) and mean PPOS scores appear similar among sub-groups of only medical students (pooled mean 4.13, 95% CI: 3.85, 4.42, n = 13 studies) and only American healthcare students (pooled mean 4.49, 95% CI: 4.35, 4.64, n = 5 studies).ConclusionsSeveral different measurement tools have been used to assess healthcare students' attitudes towards patient centred care, but the most commonly used is the PPOS. Our results indicate that healthcare students have low attitudes towards patient centred care. Future studies should evaluate if attitudes towards patient centred care can be improved during healthcare education.
| S-EPMC9047330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patient-centred infertility care (PCIC) is one of the quality indicators of effective fertility care. The application of this indicator requires a clear definition from the patient's perspective. This proposed scoping review aims to explore the extent and nature of published scientific literature on PCIC in the past decade, identify gaps in the literature and define PCIC from infertile patients' perspectives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search will include studies published from 2009 to 2019, and will be conducted on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases; reference lists will be mined for literature not contained on these databases. A grey literature search will also be conducted. To be included in the review, studies should have been conducted on people with a history of infertility, with a focus on patient-centred fertility care. Studies that have not been published in full text and studies published in languages other than English will be excluded. After study selection, data will be charted in a prepared form. We will analyse the data using descriptive numerical and qualitative thematic analyses to answer the research questions. NVivo V.12 will be used for data extraction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This work does not warrant any ethical or safety concerns. This scoping review will synthesise existing literature on PCIC, and the results will be published to be readily available for clinical audiences and policymakers. These findings may support clinicians and decision-makers in applying PCIC, thereby promoting high-quality healthcare in the concerned population.
| S-EPMC6886940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of cancer survivors is increasing due to improved treatments. Consequently, general practitioners will treat more and more cancer survivors in the upcoming years. Only little is known about the care needs of these survivors and guidelines to support general practitioners in their treatment of these patients are lacking. The aim of this study was to gain insight in the health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice.MethodsA systematic review on cancer survivors' general practice needs was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. Eligible studies could be qualitative or quantitative studies examining cancer survivors' needs in general practice. Studies of adult survivors, with any cancer type, considered free of active disease and no longer receiving active treatment, were included. For each study a quality score was given using a form developed specifically for this study. Statements about survivors' general practice needs were collected and corresponding themes were grouped.ResultsFifteen studies were included, of which twelve were qualitative. Most mentioned general practice needs were psychosocial needs, mainly being support received form the GP, followed by a need for help with medical issues, and a need for information on cancer, recovery, late treatment effects and on adjusting to life after treatment.ConclusionsCancer survivors have different types of general practice needs that are currently not or insufficiently met. This review provides a starting point for the development of new guidelines for general practitioners to support in cancer survivorship.
| S-EPMC4031325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is limited research, and guidance, on how to address safety in general practice proactively. OBJECTIVES:This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing the use of patient record review (PRR) to measure and improve patient safety in primary care. The PRR methodologies utilized and the resulting outcomes were examined. METHODS:Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO in February 2017. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were also screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies that utilized PRR to identify patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurring in general practice were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS:A total of 3265 studies were screened, with 15 included. Trigger tools were the most frequent method used for the PRRs (n = 6). The mean number of safety incidents per 100 records was 12.6. Within studies, a mean of 30.6% of incidents were associated with severe harm (range 8.6-50%), and a mean of 55.6% of incidents was considered preventable (range 32.7-93.5%). The most commonly identified types of PSIs related to medication and prescribing, diagnosis, communication and treatment. Three studies reported on improvement actions taken after the PRRs. CONCLUSION:This review suggests that PRR may be a promising means of proactively identifying patient safety incidents and informing improvements.
| S-EPMC6104614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo review systematically the published literature relating to interventions informed by patient feedback for improvement to quality of care in hospital settings.MethodsA systematic search was performed in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PsyInfo, MEDLINE, Cochrane Libraries, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases for English-language publications from January 2008 till October 2018 using a combination of MeSH-terms and keywords related to patient feedback, quality of health care, patient-centred care, program evaluation and public hospitals. The quality appraisal of the studies was conducted with the MMAT and the review protocol was published on PROSPERO. Narrative synthesis was used for evaluation of the effectiveness of the interventions on patient-centred quality of care.ResultsTwenty papers reporting 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, of these, there was one cluster RCT, three before and after studies, four cross-sectional studies and 12 organisational case studies. In the quality appraisal, 11 studies were rated low, five medium and only two of high methodological quality. Two studies could not be appraised because insufficient information was provided. The papers reported on interventions to improve communication with patients, professional practices in continuity of care and care transitions, responsiveness to patients, patient education, the physical hospital environment, use of patient feedback by staff and on quality improvement projects. However, quantitative outcomes were only provided for interventions in the areas of communication, professional practices in continuity of care and care transitions and responsiveness to patients. Multi-component interventions which targeted both individual and organisational levels were more effective than single interventions. Outcome measures reported in the studies were patient experiences across various diverse dimensions including, communication, responsiveness, coordination of and access to care, or patient satisfaction with waiting times, physical environment and staff courtesy.ConclusionOverall, it was found that there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions, because few have been tested in well-designed trials, very few papers described the theoretical basis on which the intervention had been developed. Further research is needed to understand the choice and mechanism of action of the interventions used to improve patient experience.
| S-EPMC7291559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.MethodsHealth care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsWe report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.ConclusionWe demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.
| S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature