Dataset Information

A qualitative study of patient-centered goal-setting in geriatric rehabilitation: patient and professional perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Objective:

To characterize how rehabilitation goals of older patients change over time and to explore professionals' attitudes toward patient-centered goal-setting and their perspectives on rehabilitation goals.

Design:

Qualitative interview study.

Setting:

Three geriatric rehabilitation centers.

Subjects:

Ten patients (aged???80), who had recently received inpatient geriatric rehabilitation, and seven professionals were purposively recruited.

Methods:

Semi-structured interviews. Patients were interviewed in the third or fourth week after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, to reflect on their inpatient goals and to investigate long-term goals now that they were at home. A thematic analysis was performed.

Results:

During inpatient rehabilitation, participants' main goals were regaining independence in self-care activities and going home. Post-discharge, patients were not at their baseline functioning level. Rehabilitation goals appeared to shift over time, and once at home, patients formulated more ambitious rehabilitation goals that were related to regaining full independence and being able to perform activities. Although professionals thought goal-setting together with the patient is important, they also stated that older individuals often are either unable to formulate goals or they set unrealistic ones. In addition, professionals indicated that goals have to be related to discharge criteria, such as performing basic self-care activities, and rehabilitation revolves around getting patients ready for discharge.

Conclusion:

During inpatient rehabilitation, patient goals are related to going home. After discharge, patients have ambitious goals, related to their premorbid functioning level. Rehabilitation services should distinguish between goals that are important while patients are inpatient and goals that are important after discharge.

SUBMITTER: van Seben R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6311617 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundJoint rehabilitation goals are an important component for effective teamwork in the rehabilitation field. The activities and participation domain of the ICF provides a common language for professionals when setting these goals. Involving clients in the formulation of rehabilitation goals is gaining momentum as part of a person-centred approach to rehabilitation. However, this is particularly difficult when clients have an acquired communication disability. The expressive communication difficulties negatively affect the consensus building process. As a result, obtaining information regarding rehabilitation goals from professionals and their clients warrants further investigation for this particular population.MethodsThis comparative study investigated clients and their assigned rehabilitation professionals' perception of the importance of ICF activities and participation domains for inclusion in their rehabilitation program. Twelve clients in an acute rehabilitation centre and twenty of their corresponding rehabilitation professionals participated in an activity using the Talking Mats™ visual framework for goal setting. Each participant rated the importance of the nine activities and participation domains of the ICF for inclusion in their current rehabilitation program.ResultsThe ICF domains which consistently appear as very important across these groups are mobility, self-care and communication. Domains which consistently appear in the lower third of the rankings include spare time, learning and thinking and domestic life. Results indicate however that no statistical significant differences exist in terms of the individual domains across each of the participant groups. Within group differences however indicated that amongst the speech-language therapists and physiotherapists there was a statistical significant difference between spare time activities and communication and mobility.ConclusionsFindings indicate that consensus is possible amongst professionals and clients even within an acute-rehabilitation setting. In addition, the Talking Mats™ visual framework appears to be a valid protocol for including clients with acquired communication disabilities in the process of obtaining consensus during goal-setting.

Project description:Background and aims:Patient-centered care (PCC) benefits patients, health-care providers, and health-care systems by providing delivery of care that addresses patient values and needs while improving provider experiences, and by decreasing health-care expenditure. To improve PCC, health-care systems need to measure it. Recently, we developed a PCC framework that is evidence based and patient informed. The purpose of this study was to gather the perspective of clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts regarding the PCC domains included in the framework. Their perspectives were used to refine these domains, which ultimately will inform the development of PCC quality indicators. Methods:Participants were recruited via expert and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom from October 2017 to January 2018. With the use of an interview guide developed using the PCC framework, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for a thematic analysis using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results:Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, which included four clinician-scientists and 12 quality improvement experts. Twelve of the participants were from Canada, three from the United Kingdom, and one from the United States. From the thematic analysis, three major themes were identified: (a) measurability of PCC, (b) practical considerations for implementing measurement, and (c) policy and practice implications. Participants discussed barriers and recommendations to improve and increase the clarity of the PCC domains in health system reporting, resulting in several future directions to refine and target specific PCC domains. Conclusion:Clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts provided key recommendations for the measurement of PCC. The perspectives of key stakeholders in PCC measurement will inform strategies for the implementation and uptake of patient-centered quality indicators in health-care systems. The views of these key experts can lay the foundation for the development of standardized measures of PCC, to ensure monitoring and improvement of PCC.