Dataset Information

Pushing chronic care forward in Abu Dhabi by identifying priorities and addressing barriers: a modified Delphi technique.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to elucidate the top five key priorities and barriers to chronic care in the health system of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Design

A modified Delphi study was performed to reach consensus on priority areas and barriers to the development of the Chronic Care Model in the health system of Abu Dhabi. Individual wireless audience response devices (keypads) linked to a computer were used to reduce 28 priorities and 20 barriers to the top five during three iterative rounds over three consecutive days.

Setting

Chronic care services for patients with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, in both private and publicly funded healthcare services in the emirate of Abu Dhabi.

Participants

A purposive sample of 20 health systems' experts were recruited. They were front-line healthcare workers from the public and private sector working in the delivery of care for patients with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

Results

The 'overall organizational leadership in chronic illness care' was ranked as the most important priority to address (26.3%) and 'patient compliance' was ranked as the most important barrier (36.8%) to the development of the Chronic Care Model.

Conclusions

This study has identified the current priorities and barriers to improving chronic care within Abu Dhabi's healthcare system. Our paper addresses the UAE's 2021 Agenda of achieving a world-class healthcare system, and findings may help inform strategic changes required to achieve this mission.

SUBMITTER: Paulo MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988158 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pushing chronic care forward in Abu Dhabi by identifying priorities and addressing barriers: a modified Delphi technique.

Paulo Marília Silva MS Loney Tom T Lapão Luis V LV

BMJ open 20180604 6

<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to elucidate the top five key priorities and barriers to chronic care in the health system of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).<h4>Design</h4>A modified Delphi study was performed to reach consensus on priority areas and barriers to the development of the Chronic Care Model in the health system of Abu Dhabi. Individual wireless audience response devices (keypads) linked to a computer were used to reduce 28 priorities and 20 barriers to the top five during ...[more]

PMID: 29866724

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives:We sought to evaluate the performance provided at a 'See and Treat' (ST) clinic at a tertiary hospital emergency department (ED) in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and to assess its impact on ED crowding. Methods:We conducted a retrospective electronic medical chart review and database analyses. We included patients triaged as triage level 4 (T4) and triage level 5 (T5) as per the Emergency Severity Index treated at ED in the ST clinic and other ED areas, including the off-site Urgent Care Centre (UCC) between 1 June 2016 and 30 June 2017. We analyzed a group of process and outcome measures at our ST clinic and compared them to the same measures in other areas of our ED and the co-located UCC. The process measure analyzed was the door-to-doctor time. In addition, the outcome measures analyzed were the door-to-door time, unplanned return within 72 hours, and feedback from T4 and T5 triaged patients treated at the clinic. Results:The number of patients enrolled in the study was 43?109. Of these, 11?329 (26.3%) patients were treated at the ST clinic, 6328 (14.7%) were treated at the UCC, and 25?452 (59.0%) were treated at the main ED. The door-to-doctor time was within 30 minutes for 89.0% of ST clinic patients, and 94.0% of patients experienced a door-to-door time of within two hours; 2.1% of these patients returned within 72 hours. Among these, 78.7% returned for an issue related to their first visit. However, none of the patients were admitted on their return visit. For patients presenting to UCC and other parts of our ED, we recorded a door-to-doctor time of within 30 minutes for 80.5% of patients and a door-to-door time of within two hours for 73.0% of patients. We found the difference in waiting times (i.e., door-to-doctor times between ST clinic patients and the rest of ED) to be statistically significant (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.63). However, on comparing door-to-door times, we found the difference between ST clinic patients and the rest of ED patients was not statistically significant. Conclusions:Door-to-doctor times were shorter in ST clinics compared to other parts of our ED, but there was no statistically significant difference in door-to-door times when comparing ST clinics to the rest of the ED. ST clinic patients had a lower rate of unplanned return within 72 hours, of which, none required admission on the return attendance. We believe ST clinics have a positive impact on reducing ED crowding but acknowledge they are one of the many plausible solutions attributing to optimized patient flow in the ED.

Project description:BackgroundThe United Arab Emirates is experiencing increasing rates of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications. As soluble levels of the receptor for advanced glycation end products, (sRAGE), and endogenous secretory RAGE (esRAGE), the latter an alternatively spliced form of AGER (the gene encoding RAGE), have been reported to be associated with T2D and its complications, we tested for potential relationships between these factors and T2D status in Emirati subjects.MethodsIn a case-control study, we recruited Emirati subjects with T2D and controls from the Sheikh Khalifa Medical City in Abu Dhabi. Anthropomorphic characteristics, levels of plasma sRAGE and esRAGE, and routine chemistry variables were measured.ResultsTwo hundred and sixteen T2D subjects and 215 control subjects (mean age, 57.4?±?12.1 vs. 50.7?±?15.4?years; P?<?0.0001, respectively) were enrolled. Univariate analyses showed that levels of sRAGE were significantly lower in the T2D vs. control subjects (1033.9?±?545.3 vs. 1169.2?±?664.1?pg/ml, respectively; P?=?0.02). Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, sex, systolic blood pressure, pulse, body mass index, Waist/Hip circumference ratio, fasting blood glucose, HDL, LDL, insulin, triglycerides, Vitamin D and urea levels revealed that the difference in sRAGE levels between T2D and control subjects remained statistically-significant, P?=?0.03, but not after including estimated glomerular filtration rate in the model, P?=?0.14. There were no significant differences in levels of esRAGE. Levels of plasma insulin were significantly higher in the control vs. the T2D subjects (133.6?±?149.9 vs. 107.6?±?93.3?pg/L. respectively; P?=?0.01, after adjustment for age and sex).Conclusion/discussionLevels of sRAGE, but not esRAGE, were associated with T2D status in Abu Dhabi, but not after correction for eGFR. Elevated levels of plasma insulin in both control and T2D subjects suggests the presence of metabolic dysfunction, even in subjects without diabetes.

Project description:IntroductionCancer is often considered a chronic disease, and most people with cancer have a caregiver, often a family member or friend who provides a significant amount of care during the illness trajectory. Caregivers are frequently in need of support, and a range of interventions have been trialled to improve outcomes. Consensus for optimal ways to support caregivers is not known. The aim of this protocol paper is to describe procedures for a modified Delphi study to explore expert consensus about important factors when developing caregiver interventions.Methods and analysisOnline modified Delphi methodology will be used to establish consensus for important caregiver intervention factors incorporating the Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework. Round 1 will comprise a free-text questionnaire and invite the panel to contribute factors they deem important in the development and evaluation of caregiver interventions. Round 2 is designed to determine preliminary consensus of the importance of factors generated in round 1. The panel will be asked to rate each factor using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The option for panellists to state reasoning for their rating will be provided. Descriptive statistics (median scores and IQR) will be calculated to determine each item's relative importance. Levels of consensus will be assessed based on a predefined consensus rating matrix. In round 3, factors will be recirculated including aggregate group responses (statistics and comment summaries) and panellists' own round 2 scores. Panellists will be invited to reconsider their judgements and resubmit ratings using the same rating system as in round 2. This will result in priority lists based on the panel's total rating scores.Ethics and disseminationEthics for this study has been gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group. It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.MethodsA three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.ResultsA total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?ConclusionsThe results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

Dataset Information

Pushing chronic care forward in Abu Dhabi by identifying priorities and addressing barriers: a modified Delphi technique.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pushing chronic care forward in Abu Dhabi by identifying priorities and addressing barriers: a modified Delphi technique.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets