Dataset Information

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.

Objective

To describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list.

Design

We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision-making process for establishing consensus.

Setting and participants

Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients.

Results

Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the "Top 5" priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.

SUBMITTER: McKenzie E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5689241 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

McKenzie Emily E Potestio Melissa L ML Boyd Jamie M JM Niven Daniel J DJ Brundin-Mather Rebecca R Bagshaw Sean M SM Stelfox Henry T HT

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20170531 6

<h4>Background</h4>Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality im ...[more]

PMID: 28561887

Similar Datasets

Project description:To identify the relationships between advance directive status, demographic characteristics and decisional burden (role stress and depressive symptoms) of surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) of patients with chronic critical illness.Although the prevalence of advance directives among Americans has increased, SDMs are ultimately responsible for complex medical decisions of the chronically critically ill patient. Decisional burden has lasting psychological effects on SDMs. There is insufficient evidence on the influence of advance directives on the decisional burden of surrogate decision-makers of patients with chronic critical illness.The study was a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional data. Data were obtained from 489 surrogate decision-makers of chronically critically ill patients at two academic medical centres in Northeast Ohio, United States, between September 2005-May 2008.Data were collected using demographic forms and questionnaires. A single-item measure of role stress and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale were used to capture the SDM's decisional burden. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square and path analyses were performed.Surrogate decision-makers who were nonwhite, with low socioeconomic status and low education level were less likely to have advance directive documentation for their chronically critically ill patient. The presence of an advance directive mitigates the decisional burden by directly reducing the SDM's role stress and indirectly lessening the severity of depressive symptoms.Most SDMs of chronically critically ill patients will not have the benefit of knowing the patient's preferences for life-sustaining therapies and consequently be at risk of increased decisional burden.Study results are clinically useful for patient education on the influence of advance directives. Patients may be informed that SDMs without advance directives are at risk of increased decisional burden and will require decisional support to facilitate patient-centred decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2016 the UK Department of Health and Social Care published the results of a comprehensive review of efficiency in hospitals, identifying "unwarranted variation" in procurement (or purchasing) practices for materials, supplies and devices. Addressing this variation in materials and supplies procurement practice has been identified as particularly important for creating efficiencies in health service delivery. However, little is known about the behaviour and experiences of front-line individuals who make these procurement decisions, which has implications for the development of strategies to improve efficiency. The objective of this study is to improve understanding of the factors influencing procurement behaviour and decisions among requisitioners who use an internal electronic procurement portal for medical supplies and equipment, and identify areas where efficiency could be improved.MethodsQualitative semi-structured individual interview study, following approximately 70 h of exploratory observations on site. The study context was a large London National Health Service (NHS) healthcare provider (the Trust), where we focussed primarily on purchases managed by a large hospital. Participants were drawn from requisitioners from multiple directorates across the Trust (n = 15; of these n = 2 clinical staff members, n = 13 non-clinical).ResultsFour factors stood out in our analysis as directly affecting procurement decisions: (1) a high level of variation in electronic purchasing and inventory management procedures throughout the Trust, (ii) an inaccurate and cumbersome search facility on the internal electronic procurement platform, exacerbated by poor IT skills training and support (iii) an inefficient purchase approvals system and (iv) multiple working sites and cluttered environments. We observed that these factors led requisitioners to employ a variety of strategies or so-called 'workarounds' to overcome the challenges they encountered, including stockpiling, relying on internal and supplier relationships, by-passing procedures to save time, purchasing outside existing agreements to save cost, and (re) delegating purchasing responsibilities among requisitioner staff - which both addressed and created difficulties.ConclusionsWorking with the assumption that staff 'workarounds' indicate where main issues lie, we offer four possible explanations to why they occur: (a) to maintain services and prepare for future care requirements, (b) to save on costs for the organisation, (c) to develop skills and development in purchasing and (d) to break silos and work collaboratively. These four explanations help provide initial starting points for improving efficiencies in health supplies' procurement processes.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain has emerged as a disease in itself, affecting a growing number of people. Effective patient-provider communication is central to good pain management because pain can only be understood from the patient's perspective. We aimed to develop a user-centered tool to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain and assess its feasibility in real-world settings in preparation for further evaluation and distribution.MethodsTo identify and prioritize patient treatment goals for chronic pain, strategies to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain, and facilitate implementation of the tool, we conducted nominal group technique meetings and card sorting with patients with chronic pain and experienced providers (n = 12). These findings informed the design of the PainAPP tool. Usability and beta-testing with patients (n = 38) and their providers refined the tool and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact.ResultsFormative work revealed that patients felt neither respected nor trusted by their providers and focused on transforming providers' negative attitudes towards them, whereas providers focused on gathering patient information. PainAPP incorporated areas prioritized by patients and providers: assessing patient treatment goals and preferences, functional abilities and pain, and providing patients tailored education and an overall summary that patients can share with providers. Beta-testing involved 38 patients and their providers. Half of PainAPP users shared their summaries with their providers. Patients rated PainAPP highly in all areas. All users would recommend it to others with chronic pain; nearly all trusted the information and said it helped them think about my treatment goals (94%), understand my chronic pain (82%), make the most of my next doctor's visit (82%), and not want to use opioids (73%). Beta-testing revealed challenges delivering the tool and summary report to patients and providers in a timely manner and obtaining provider feedback.ConclusionsPainAPP appears feasible for use, but further adaptation and testing is needed to assess its impact on patients and providers.Trial registrationThis study was approved by the University of New England Independent Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (012616-019) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: NCT03425266) prior to enrollment. The trial was prospectively registered and was approved on February 7, 2018.

Dataset Information

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

Background

Objective

Design

Setting and participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets