Dataset Information

A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Ahmed S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6920695 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.

Ahmed Sadia S Djurkovic Andrea A Manalili Kimberly K Sahota Balreen B Santana Maria J MJ

Health science reports 20191104 12

<h4>Background and aims</h4>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 qua ...[more]

PMID: 31890898

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:ObjectiveApproximately fifteen million women in the United States live > 50 miles from a gynecologic oncologist. Telemedical technology allows patients' local physicians to consult with subspecialist gynecologic oncologists without burdening patients with unnecessary in-person visits. Although critical to adoption of this technology, physicians' input into implementation of clinician-to-clinician consultation has not been sought. We therefore gathered feedback about experiences with referrals, communication, and openness to telemedical consultation from gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists.MethodsWe recruited gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists from practices serving rural patients to participate in semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework guided the interviews. Questions focused on factors influencing adoption and implementation of clinician-to-clinician telemedicine. Interviews were conducted via WebEx, recorded, and transcribed. Two investigators coded interviews using the combined frameworks and identified salient themes.ResultsWe conducted 11 interviews (6 gynecologic oncologists, 3 gynecologists, 2 medical oncologists) and identified themes encompassing communication burnout, barriers to sharing patient information, need for further logistical information, and potential benefits to patients.ConclusionsClinician-to-clinician telemedicine may improve access to gynecologic cancer care by decreasing barriers to subspecialty expertise while simultaneously benefiting referring and consultant clinicians through improved identification and workup of patients who may need in-person consultation. To optimize desired outcomes, telemedical consultation must allow for communication of relevant patient information and records and easy integration into clinical workflow. Importantly, clinicians must perceive the consultation as improving patients' access to specialty care.

Project description:The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Project description:BackgroundFor more than a decade, the Patient-Centered Medical Home model has been a guiding vision for the modernization of primary care systems. In Canada, Ontario's Family Health Teams (FHTs) were designed in the mid-2000s with the medical home model in mind. These primary care clinics aim to provide accessible, comprehensive, and person-centered primary care services to communities across Ontario. Their services typically include mental health care for people experiencing common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety disorders. It remains unclear, however, whether the mental health care delivered within FHTs is consistent with person-centered care approaches. In the current study, we aimed to explore the perspectives of FHT providers on the care delivered to people with common mental disorders to determine whether, and to what extent, they believed this care was person-centered.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative grounded theory study involving interviews with 65 health professionals and administrators from 18 FHTs across Ontario. Transcripts were coded using a three-step process of initial, focused, and axial coding that mixed inductive and deductive approaches informed by sensitizing concepts on person-centeredness.ResultsPractices and challenges associated with the delivery of mental health care in a person-centered way were captured by several themes regrouped into five domains: (1) patient as unique person, (2) patient-provider relationship, (3) sharing power and responsibility, (4) connecting to family and community, and (5) creating person-centered care environments. FHT providers perceived that they delivered person-centered care by delivering mental health care that was responsive, flexible, and consistent with biopsychosocial approaches. They emphasized the importance of creating long-lasting relationships with patients grounded in empathy and trust. Their challenges included being able to ensure continuity of care, adequately prioritizing patients' mental health issues, and meaningfully engaging patients and families as partners in care.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that FHT providers have adopted a range of person-centered practices for people with common mental disorders. However, greater attention to practices such as shared decision making, supporting self-management, and involving families in care would strengthen person-centeredness and bring teams closer to the Patient-Centered Medical Home vision.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.

Publications

A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets