Development and Testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care (PSPIC) Survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Derrett S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6545265 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development and Testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care (PSPIC) Survey.
Derrett Sarah S Gunter Kathryn E KE Samaranayaka Ari A Singer Sara J SJ Nocon Robert S RS Quinn Michael T MT Breheny Mary M Campbell Amanda A Schaefer Cynthia T CT Heuer Loretta J LJ Chin Marshall H MH
Medical care research and review : MCRR 20171212 6
This article discusses development and testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey, a 21-item questionnaire, informed by Singer and colleagues' seven-construct framework. Questionnaires were sent to 2,936 providers and staff at 100 federally qualified health centers and other safety net clinics in 10 Midwestern U.S. states; 332 were ineligible, leaving 2,604 potential participants. Following 4 mailings, 781 (30%) responded from 97 health centers. Item analyses, explor ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSubstantial changes in abortion care regulations, available medications and national clinical practice guidelines have occurred since a 2012 national Canadian Abortion Provider Survey (CAPS). We developed and piloted the CAPS 2019 survey instrument to explore changes of the abortion provider workforce, their clinical care as well as experiences with stigma and harassment.MethodsWe undertook development and piloting in three phases: (1) development of the preliminary survey sections and questions based on the 2012 survey instrument, (2) content validation and feasibility of including certain content aspects via a modified Delphi Method with panels of clinical and research experts, and (3) pilot testing of the draft survey for face validity and clarity of language; assessing usability of the web-based Research Electronic Data Capture platform including the feasibility of complex skip pattern functionality. We performed content analysis of phase 2 results and used a general inductive approach to identify necessary survey modifications.ResultsIn phase 1, we generated a survey draft that reflected the changes in Canadian abortion care regulations and guidelines and included questions for clinicians and administrators providing first and second trimester surgical and medical abortion. In phase 2, we held 6 expert panel meetings of 5-8 participants each representing clinicians, administrators and researchers to provide feedback on the initial survey draft. Due to the complexity of certain identified aspects, such as interdisciplinary collaboration and interprovincial care delivery differences, we revised the survey sections through an iterative process of meetings and revisions until we reached consensus on constructs and questions to include versus exclude for not being feasible. In phase 3, we made minor revisions based on pilot testing of the bilingual, web-based survey among additional experts chosen to be widely representative of the study population. Demonstrating its feasibility, we included complex branching and skip pattern logic so each respondent only viewed applicable questions based on their prior responses.ConclusionsWe developed and piloted the CAPS 2019 survey instrument suitable to explore characteristics of a complex multidisciplinary workforce, their care and experience with stigma on a national level, and that can be adapted to other countries.
| S-EPMC10034882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the past decade, the concept of Lean has spread rapidly within the healthcare sector, but there is a lack of instruments that can measure staff's perceptions of Lean adoption. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a questionnaire measuring Lean in healthcare, based on Liker's description of Lean, by adapting an existing instrument developed for the service sector.MethodsA mixed-method design was used. Initially, items from the service sector instrument were categorized according to Liker's 14 principles describing Lean within four domains: philosophy, processes, people and partners and problem-solving. Items were lacking for three of Liker's principles and were therefore developed de novo. Think-aloud interviews were conducted with 12 healthcare staff from different professions to contextualize and examine the face validity of the questionnaire prototype. Thereafter, the adjusted questionnaire's psychometric properties were assessed on the basis of a cross-sectional survey among 386 staff working in primary care.ResultsThe think-aloud interviews led to adjustments in the questionnaire to better suit a healthcare context, and the number of items was reduced. Confirmatory factor analysis of the adjusted questionnaire showed a generally acceptable correspondence with Liker's description of Lean. Internal consistency, measured using Cronbach's alpha, for the factors in Liker's description of Lean was 0.60 for the factor people and partners, and over 0.70 for the three other factors. Test-retest reliability measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 for the four factors.ConclusionsWe designed a questionnaire capturing staff's perceptions of Lean adoption in healthcare on the basis of Liker's description. This Lean in Healthcare Questionnaire (LiHcQ) showed generally acceptable psychometric properties, which supports its usability for measuring Lean adoption in healthcare. We suggest that further research focus on verifying the usability of LiHcQ in other healthcare settings, and on adjusting the instrument if needed.
| S-EPMC5364711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual care (VC) across outpatient specialties, but little is known regarding provider acceptance of VC.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess provider perceptions of the quality, efficiency, and challenges of VC versus in-person care with masks.DesignThis was a voluntary survey.ParticipantsMental health (MH), primary care, medical specialty, and surgical specialty providers across the 8 VA New England Healthcare System medical centers.MeasuresProvider ratings of: (1) quality and efficiency of VC (phone and video telehealth) compared with in-person care with masks; (2) challenges of VC; and (3) percentage of patients that providers are comfortable seeing via VC in the future.ResultsThe sample included 998 respondents (49.8% MH, 20.6% primary care, 20.4% medical specialty, 9.1% surgical specialty; 61% response rate). Most providers rated VC as equivalent to or higher in quality and efficiency compared with in-person care with masks. Quality ratings were significantly higher for video versus phone (χ2=61.4, P<0.0001), but efficiency ratings did not differ significantly. Ratings varied across specialties (highest in MH, lowest in SS; all χ2s>24.1, Ps<0.001). Inability to conduct a physical examination and patient technical difficulties were significant challenges. MH providers were comfortable seeing a larger proportion of patients virtually compared with the other specialties (all χ2s>12.2, Ps<0.01).ConclusionsBroad provider support for VC was stratified across specialties, with the highest ratings in MH and lowest ratings in SS. Findings will inform the improvement of VC processes and the planning of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
| S-EPMC8191369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many strategies to alleviate racial/ethnic disparities in surgical care target healthcare providers. Yet limited data exists about the perception of disparities among the range of clinical staff who work in perioperative settings. Such information could help initiate conversations about disparities in perioperative care and, if necessary, implement interventions to alleviate them. Our aim was to evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics, clinical position (physicians and non-physicians) and perception of perioperative disparities at a large tertiary care center. METHODS:We surveyed perioperative staff at the institution using an anonymous online survey. Primary outcome was respondents' perception of disparities in perioperative care at the institution due to patients' insurance status/type, ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. The association between clinical position (physician vs. non-physician) and perception of disparities was assessed in bivariate and then multivariable analysis, adjusting for respondents' race, sex, age, and years at the institution. Secondary outcomes included perception of disparities in perioperative care in the United States due to patients' insurance status/type, ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. RESULTS:217 completed questions that could be analyzed. Among these responders, 101 were physicians (46.5%), 165 (76.0%) were white, and 144 (66.4.%) were female. Bivariate and multivariate analysis revealed that physicians had higher perception of disparities in perioperative care at the institution based on patients' ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. Physicians also had higher perceptions of disparities in perioperative care in the United States than non-physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Physicians reported higher perceptions of disparities in perioperative care than non-physicians, potentially explained by differences in training or contact with patients. Such findings serve as a first step at examining and discussing disparities in perioperative care and warrant further study.
| S-EPMC6925635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopted a screening test policy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in all "Baby Boomers" - those born between 1945 and 1965. About 1 in 12 Veterans were estimated to be infected with HCV yet approximately 34% of the birth cohort remained untested. Early HCV diagnosis and successful antiviral treatment decrease the risk of onward transmission, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and death. Implementing evidence-based HCV screening in primary care has great potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. To inform design and implementation of a quality improvement intervention, we studied primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of and experiences with HCV birth cohort testing. METHODS:We conducted a formative evaluation using qualitative semi-structured interviews guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Twenty-two PCPs in six states across a large integrated US healthcare system were interviewed. Content analysis with a priori and emergent codes was performed on verbatim interview transcripts. RESULTS:We identified three themes related to primary care provider HCV testing and linkage practices, as mapped to i-PARIHS constructs: 1) evaluating cues to HCV testing (innovation/evidence), 2) framing HCV testing decisions (recipients), and 3) HCV testing and linkage to care in the new treatment era (context). The most frequently reported HCV testing cue was an electronic clinical reminder alert, followed by clinical markers and the presence of behavioral risk factors. Most PCPs saw testing as routine, but less urgent, leading to some reluctance. Providers largely saw themselves as performing guideline-concordant testing, yet no performance data were available to assess performance. Given the recent availability of new HCV medications, many PCPs were highly motivated to test and link patients to specialty care for treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest a multi-component intervention around awareness and education, feedback of performance data, clinical reminder updates, and leadership support, would address both a significant need, and be deemed acceptable and feasible to primary care providers.
| S-EPMC6480846 | biostudies-other
Project description:Insomnia is a widespread issue among United States adults and rates of insomnia among veterans are even higher than the general population. Prior research examining primary care provider (PCP) perspectives on insomnia treatment found that: sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy are the primary treatments offered; PCPs tend to focus on perceived causes of insomnia rather than the insomnia itself; and neither patients nor providers are satisfied with insomnia treatment options. Although insomnia complaints are typically first reported to primary care providers, little research has focused on perspectives regarding insomnia treatment among PCPs working in the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. This study was conducted to examine VA PCP perceptions of the availability of insomnia treatments, identify specific strategies offered by PCPs, and examine perceptions regarding the importance of treating insomnia and the role of comorbid conditions.A survey was conducted within the VA health care system. Primary care providers completed surveys electronically.A high percentage of veterans (modal response = 20% to 39%) seen in VA primary care settings report an insomnia complaint to their provider. Almost half of respondents do not consistently document insomnia in the medical record (46% endorsed "sometimes," "rarely," or "never"). PCPs routinely advise sleep hygiene recommendations for insomnia (ie, avoid stimulants before bedtime [84.3%], and keep the bedroom environment quiet and dark and comfortable [68.6%]) and many are uncertain if cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is available at their facility (43.1%).Findings point to the need for systems-level changes within health care systems, including the adoption of evidence-based clinical practice standards for insomnia and PCP education about the processes that maintain insomnia.A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 937.
| S-EPMC5529136 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objectives: The medical community is in agreement that artificial intelligence (AI) will have a radical impact on patient care in the near future. The purpose of this study is to assess the awareness of AI technologies among health professionals and to investigate their perceptions toward AI applications in medicine. Design: A web-based Google Forms survey was distributed via the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust e-newsletter. Setting: Only staff working at the NHS Foundation Trust received an invitation to complete the online questionnaire. Participants: 98 healthcare professionals out of 7,538 (response rate 1.3%; CI 95%; margin of error 9.64%) completed the survey, including medical doctors, nurses, therapists, managers, and others. Primary outcome: To investigate the prior knowledge of health professionals on the subject of AI as well as their attitudes and worries about its current and future applications. Results: 64% of respondents reported never coming across applications of AI in their work and 87% did not know the difference between machine learning and deep learning, although 50% knew at least one of the two terms. Furthermore, only 5% stated using speech recognition or transcription applications on a daily basis, while 63% never utilize them. 80% of participants believed there may be serious privacy issues associated with the use of AI and 40% considered AI to be potentially even more dangerous than nuclear weapons. However, 79% also believed AI could be useful or extremely useful in their field of work and only 10% were worried AI will replace them at their job. Conclusions: Despite agreeing on the usefulness of AI in the medical field, most health professionals lack a full understanding of the principles of AI and are worried about potential consequences of its widespread use in clinical practice. The cooperation of healthcare workers is crucial for the integration of AI into clinical practice and without it the NHS may miss out on an exceptionally rewarding opportunity. This highlights the need for better education and clear regulatory frameworks.
| S-EPMC7861214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe advancement of digital health has widened the scope of technology use across multiple frontiers of health care services, including personalized therapeutics, mobile health, eHealth record management, and telehealth consultations. The World Health Organization (WHO) responded to this in 2018 by publishing an inaugural broad classification framework of digital health interventions (DHIs) used to address contemporary health system needs.ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the systematic development of dual survey instruments (clinician and patient) to support data collection, administered in a physiotherapy setting, about perceptions toward DHIs. This is achieved by adapting the WHO framework classification for DHIs for application in real-world research.MethodsUsing a qualitative item review approach, WHO DHI descriptors were adapted and refined systematically to be used in a survey form. This approach was designed to align with the processes of delivering and receiving care in clinical practice, using musculoskeletal physiotherapy as a practical case scenario.ResultsComplementary survey instruments (for health care providers and clients) were developed by adapting descriptor items. These instruments will be used in a larger study exploring the willingness of physiotherapists and patients to use digital technologies in the management of musculoskeletal conditions.ConclusionsThis study builds on the WHO-standardized DHI framework. We developed dual novel survey instruments by adapting and refining the functions of DHIs. These may be deployed to explore the perceived usefulness and application of DHIs for different clinical care functions. Researchers may wish to use these survey instruments to examine digital health use systematically in a variety of clinical fields or technology scenarios in a way that is standardized and generalizable.
| S-EPMC8367153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and perioperative surgical home (PSH) initiatives are widely utilized to improve quality of patient care. Despite their established benefits, implementation still has significant barriers. We developed a survey for perioperative clinicians to gather information on perception and knowledge of ERAS/PSH programs to guide future expansion of these programs at our institution. The survey included questions about familiarity with ERAS/PSH and perceived value, perceived barriers to protocol implementation, preferred learning methods and prioritization of various ERAS/PSH protocol elements into care delivery and provider education. Faculty surgeons and anesthesiologists, in addition to advanced practice nurses and postgraduate physician trainees in the Departments of Surgery and Anesthesiology were asked to complete the survey. Overall survey participation was 25% (223/888). About half of survey respondents had provided care to a patient on an ERAS/PSH protocol, and a majority felt at least somewhat knowledgeable about ERAS/PSH protocols. Perception of the value of ERAS/PSH was positive. Participants were enthusiastic about on-going learning, with multimodal pain management being the topic of most interest and learning by direct participation in care of protocol patients being the favored educational approach. A significant majority of participants felt that upcoming health providers should receive formal ERAS/PSH education as part of their training. Based on our survey results, we plan to explore teaching methods that successfully engage learners of all levels of clinical expertise and also overcome the major barriers to gaining knowledge about ERAS/PSH identified by study participants, most notably lack of time for busy clinicians.
| S-EPMC8213318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUK migrants born in intermediate to high prevalence areas for blood borne viruses (BBV) including hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV are at increased risk of these infections. National guidance from Public Health England (PHE) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends primary care test this population to increase diagnoses and treatment. We aimed to investigate primary care professionals' knowledge of entitlements, and perceptions of barriers, for migrants accessing healthcare, and their policies, and reported practices and influences on provision of BBV testing in migrants.MethodsA pre-piloted questionnaire was distributed between October 2017 and January 2018 to primary care professionals attending the Royal College of General Practitioners and Best Practice in Primary Care conferences, via a link in PHE Vaccine Updates and through professional networks. Survey results were analysed to give descriptive statistics, and responses by respondent characteristics: profession, region, practice size, and frequency of seeing migrant patients. Responses were considered on a per question basis with response rates for each question presented with the results.ResultsFour hundred fourteen questionnaires were returned with responses varying by question, representing an estimated 5.7% of English GP practices overall. Only 14% of respondents' practices systematically identified migrant patients for testing. Universal opt-out testing was offered to newly registering migrant patients by 18% of respondents for hepatitis B, 17% for hepatitis C and 21% for HIV. Knowledge of healthcare entitlements varied; fewer clinical staff knew that general practice consultations were free to all migrants (76%) than for urgent care (88%). Performance payment structure (76%) had the greatest reported influence on testing, followed by PHE and Clinical Commissioning Group recommendations (73% each). Language and culture were perceived to be the biggest barriers to accessing care.ConclusionsBBV testing for migrant patients in primary care is usually ad hoc, which is likely to lead to testing opportunities being missed. Knowledge of migrants' entitlements to healthcare varies and could affect access to care. Interventions to improve professional awareness and identification of migrant patients requiring BBV testing are needed to reduce the undiagnosed and untreated burden of BBVs in this vulnerable population.
| S-EPMC7877334 | biostudies-literature