Dataset Information

Essential Components of an Interstitial Lung Disease Clinic: Results From a Delphi Survey and Patient Focus Group Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Management of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) requires subspecialized, comprehensive, multidisciplinary care. The Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation established the Care Center Network (CCN) in 2013 with identified criteria to become a designated CCN site. Despite these criteria, the essential components of an ILD clinic remain unknown.

Research questions

How are ILD clinics within the CCN structured? What are the essential components of an ILD clinic according to ILD physician experts, patients, and caregivers?

Study design and methods

This study had three components. First, all 68 CCN sites were surveyed to determine the characteristics of their current ILD clinics. Second, an online, three-round modified Delphi survey was conducted between October and December 2019 with 48 ILD experts participating in total. Items for round 1 were generated using expert interviews. During rounds 1 and 2, experts rated the importance of each item on a 5-point Likert scale. The a priori threshold for consensus was more than 75% of experts rating an item as important or very important. In round 3, experts graded items that met consensus and ranked items deemed essential for an ILD clinic. Third, ILD patient and caregiver focus groups were conducted and analyzed for content to determine their perspectives of an ideal ILD clinic.

Results

Forty items across four categories (members, infrastructure, resources, and multidisciplinary conference) achieved consensus as essential to an ILD clinic. Patient and caregiver focus groups identified three major themes: comprehensive, patient-centered medical care; expanded access to care; and comprehensive support for living and coping with ILD.

Interpretation

The essential components of an ILD clinic are well-aligned between physician experts and patients. Future research can use these findings to evaluate the impact of these components on patient outcomes and to inform best practices for ILD clinics throughout the world.

SUBMITTER: Graney BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7534733 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests yoga is a safe and effective intervention for the management of physical and psychosocial symptoms associated with musculoskeletal conditions. However, heterogeneity in the components and reporting of clinical yoga trials impedes both the generalization of study results and the replication of study protocols. The aim of this Delphi survey was to address these issues of heterogeneity, by developing a list of recommendations of key components for the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: Recognised experts involved in the design, conduct, and teaching of yoga for musculoskeletal conditions were identified from a systematic review, and invited to contribute to the Delphi survey. Forty-one of the 58 experts contacted, representing six countries, agreed to participate. A three-round Delphi was conducted via electronic surveys. Round 1 presented an open-ended question, allowing panellists to individually identify components they considered key to the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. Thematic analysis of Round 1 identified items for quantitative rating in Round 2; items not reaching consensus were forwarded to Round 3 for re-rating. RESULTS: Thirty-six panellists (36/41; 88%) completed the three rounds of the Delphi survey. Panellists provided 348 comments to the Round 1 question. These comments were reduced to 49 items, grouped under five themes, for rating in subsequent rounds. A priori group consensus of ?80% was reached on 28 items related to five themes concerning defining the yoga intervention, types of yoga practices to include in an intervention, delivery of the yoga protocol, domains of outcome measures, and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. Additionally, a priori consensus of ?50% was reached on five items relating to minimum values for intervention parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus has provided a non-prescriptive reference list for the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. It is anticipated future research incorporating the Delphi guidelines will facilitate high quality international research in this field, increase homogeneity of intervention components and parameters, and enhance the comparison and reproducibility of research into the use of yoga for the management of musculoskeletal conditions.

Project description:BackgroundResearch on patients' choice of hospital has focused on inpatients' rather than outpatients' choice of provider. We have investigated Danish outpatients' awareness and utilisation of freedom of choice of provider; which factors influence outpatients' choice of hospital, and how socio-demographic variables influence these factors in a single uptake area, where patients were free to choose any public hospital, where care was provided free at the point of delivery, and where distance to the closest hospitals were short by international standards.MethodsRetrospective questionnaire study of 4,232 outpatients referred to examination, treatment, or follow-up at one of nine somatic outpatient clinics in Roskilde County in two months of 2002, who had not been hospitalised within the latest 12 months. The patients were asked, whether they were aware of and utilised freedom of choice of hospital.ResultsFifty-four percent (2,272 patients) filled in and returned the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of respondents were aware of their right to choose, and 53% of those patients utilised their right to choose. Awareness of freedom of choice of provider was reported to be especially high in female outpatients, patients with longer education, salaried employees in the public sector, and in patients referred to surgical specialties. Female outpatients and students were especially likely to report that they utilised their right to choose the provider. Short distance was the most important reason for outpatients' choice, followed by the GP's recommendations, short waiting time, and the patient's previous experience with the hospital.ConclusionsOutpatients' awareness and utilisation of free choice of health care provider was low. Awareness of freedom of choice of provider differed significantly by specialty and patient's gender, education and employment. Female patients and students were especially likely to choose the clinic by themselves. Most outpatients chose the clinic closest to their home, the GP's recommendation and short waiting time being the second and third most important factors behind choice.