Dataset Information

Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE:International efforts are being made towards a person-centred care (PCC) model, but there are currently no standardised mechanisms to measure and monitor PCC at a healthcare system level. The use of metrics to measure PCC can help to drive the changes needed to improve the quality of healthcare that is person centred. OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate person-centred care quality indicators (PC-QIs) measuring PCC at a healthcare system level through a synthesis of the evidence and a person-centred consensus approach to ensure the PC-QIs reflect what matters most to people in their care. METHODS:Existing indicators were first identified through a scoping review of the literature and an international environmental scan. Focus group discussions with diverse patients and caregivers and interviews with clinicians and experts in quality improvement allowed us to identify gaps in current measurement of PCC and inform the development of new PC-QIs. A set of identified and newly developed PC-QIs were subsequently refined by Delphi consensus process using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. The international consensus panel consisted of patients, family members, community representatives, clinicians, researchers and healthcare quality experts. RESULTS:From an initial 39 unique evidence-based PC-QIs identified and developed, the consensus process yielded 26 final PC-QIs. These included 7 related to structure, 16 related to process, 2 related to outcome and 1 overall global PC-QI. CONCLUSIONS:The final 26 evidence-based and person-informed PC-QIs can be used to measure and evaluate quality incorporating patient perspectives, empowering jurisdictions to monitor healthcare system performance and evaluate policy and practice related to PCC.

SUBMITTER: Santana MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7597468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators.

Santana Maria-Jose MJ Manalili Kimberly K Zelinsky Sandra S Brien Susan S Gibbons Elizabeth E King Jenny J Frank Lori L Wallström Sara S Fairie Paul P Leeb Kira K Quan Hude H Sawatzky Richard R

BMJ open 20201029 10

<h4>Importance</h4>International efforts are being made towards a person-centred care (PCC) model, but there are currently no standardised mechanisms to measure and monitor PCC at a healthcare system level. The use of metrics to measure PCC can help to drive the changes needed to improve the quality of healthcare that is person centred.<h4>Objective</h4>To develop and validate person-centred care quality indicators (PC-QIs) measuring PCC at a healthcare system level through a synthesis of the ev ...[more]

PMID: 33122312

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEffective engagement of underrepresented communities in health research and policy remains a challenge due to barriers that hinder participation. Our study had two objectives: (1) identify themes of person-centred care (PCC) from perspectives of diverse patients/caregivers that would inform the development of person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for evaluating the quality of PCC and initiatives to improve PCC and (2) explore innovative participatory approaches to engage ethnocultural communities in qualitative research.MethodsDrawing on participatory action research methods, we partnered with a community-based organization to train six 'Community Brokers' from the Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Latino-Hispanic, East African and Syrian communities, who were engaged throughout the study. We also partnered with the provincial health organization to engage their Patient and Family Advisory, who represented further aspects of diversity. We conducted focus group discussions with patients/caregivers to obtain their perspectives on their values, preferences and needs regarding PCC. We identified themes through our study and engaged provincial stakeholders to prioritize these themes for informing the development of PC-QIs and codesign initiatives for improving PCC.ResultsEight focus groups were conducted with 66 diverse participants. Ethnocultural communities highlighted themes related to access and cost of care, language barriers and culture, while the Patient and Family Advisory emphasized patient and caregiver engagement. Together with provincial stakeholders, initiatives were identified to improve PCC, such as codesigning innovative models of training and evaluation of healthcare providers.ConclusionIncorporating patient and community voices requires addressing issues related to equity and understanding barriers to effective and meaningful engagement.Patient or public contributionPatient and public engagement was central to our research study. This included partnership with a community-based organization, with a broad network of ethnocultural communities, as well as the provincial health service delivery organization, who both facilitated the ongoing engagement of diverse patients/caregiver communities throughout our study including designing the study, recruiting participants, collecting and organizing data, interpreting findings and mobilizing knowledge. Drawing from participatory action research methods, patients and the public were involved in the codesign of the PC-QIs and initiatives to improve PCC in the province based on the findings from our study.

Project description:BackgroundAged Care Assessment Teams are the assessment component of the Australian aged care system. Their purpose is to undertake needs-based assessments to determine an older person's eligibility for, and access to Commonwealth-funded aged care services. There are no measures that tell us if the aged care assessment service is of high quality from the perspective of the person being assessed. Quality measures have been developed and introduced in Australian residential aged care facilities. These however, have not considered the perspectives of those living in this setting. Quality measures for home care services have also been recommended. This research aims to address the gap in person-centred quality measures by asking current and future service users of aged care assessment services to vote on the importance of 24 person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), that were developed in a previous study using a modified Delphi method approach supported by engagement with a consumer led Advisory Board.MethodsThis mixed methods study used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to reach consensus on a final set of PC-QIs. Twenty-five community-dwelling older people in Brisbane, Australia, voted on the importance of 24 PC-QIs using a five-point Likert scale. A consensus statement for PC-QI elimination was determined prior to participants voting. Voting was undertaken with participants individually either face-to-face or via telephone, in their homes. To capture any narrative provided by participants regarding each PC-QI, participant voting sessions were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Quantitative data from participant votes for each PC-QI were calculated and statistically described by median, interquartile range, consensus met, percentile, percentile rank, rank order, median and standard deviation. PC-QIs were then assessed against the consensus statement for elimination and rank ordered according to importance to participants. Content analysis of qualitative data from audio transcriptions was conducted to determine the presence of certain words supporting participant votes for each PC-QI.ResultsNo PC-QIs were eliminated during voting. Variation existed among participants' ratings of importance for each PC-QI. Final quality domains, their respective title, quality indicator descriptor and supporting qualitative data are presented. Five PC-QIs had a median of five, no votes recorded below four, an interquartile range of zero, and a rank order score of one, two and four, out of a possible ten, indicating they were of highest importance to participants.ConclusionParticipants reached consensus on 24 evidence-based PC-QIs that represent measures of quality of aged care assessment services from the perspectives of current and future service users.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centred quality indicators allow health care systems to monitor and evaluate patient-centred care practices and identify gaps in health care quality. Our objective was to determine whether Canadian provinces and territories measure patient-centred care, identify patient-centred quality indicators currently being used and compare patient-centred care practices and measurement in Canada to those of health care systems in other countries. METHODS:An online survey was developed to collect data on demographic characteristics, patient-centred care practices, and indicators used at quality improvement organizations and health care authorities. The survey was conducted with quality improvement leads in Canada and 4 other countries. Content analysis methods were used to analyze and report the data. Patient-centred quality indicators were identified and categorized according to the Donabedian framework (structure, process, outcome). RESULTS:The survey had a response rate of 47/67 (70%) and a completion rate of 58/60 (97%). We obtained completed surveys from 12 of the 13 provinces and territories in Canada. Respondents from most provinces indicated their organization used patient-centred care measures to inform practices. Respondents in only 4 provinces/territories reported using patient-centred quality indicators, for a total of 61 unique indicators. Most indicators used across Canada assessed aspects of care related to the Donabedian components of process and outcome. Findings for Canada were comparable to those for Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand, where many measures are still in development. INTERPRETATION:This study provided greater insight into patient-centred care measurement across Canada, Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand and helped us to identify patient-centred quality indicators currently in use. These results will inform the development of a standard set of patient-centred quality indicators for implementation by health care organizations to improve the quality of health care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Different models for care pathways involving both specialist and primary care have been developed to ensure adequate follow-up after discharge. These care pathways have mainly been developed and run by specialist care and have been disease-based. In this study, primary care providers took the initiative to develop a model for integrated care pathways across care levels for older patients in need of home care services after discharge. Initially, the objective was to develop pathways for patients diagnosed with heart failure, COPD and stroke. The aim of this paper is to investigate the process and the experiences of the participants in this developmental work. The participants were drawn from three hospitals, six municipalities and patient organizations in Central Norway. METHODS:This qualitative study used focus group interviews, written material and observations. Representatives from the hospitals, municipalities and patient organizations taking part in the development process were chosen as informants. RESULTS:The development process was very challenging because of the differing perspectives on care and different organizational structures in specialist care and primary care. In this study, the disease perspective, being dominant in specialist care, was not found to be suitable for use in primary health care because of the need to cover a broader perspective including the patient's functioning, social situation and his or her preferences. Furthermore, managing several different disease-based care pathways was found to be unsuitable in home care services, as well as unsuitable for a population characterized by a substantial degree of comorbidity. The outcome of the development process was a consensus that outlined a single, common patient-centred care pathway for transition from hospital to follow-up in primary care. The pathway was suitable for most common diseases and included functional and social aspects as well as disease follow-up, thus merging the differing perspectives. The disease-based care pathways were kept for use within the hospitals. CONCLUSIONS:Disease-based care pathways for older patients were found to be neither feasible nor sustainable in primary care. A common patient-centred care pathway that could meet the needs of multi- morbid patients was recommended.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation of person-centred care (PCC) is a challenging undertaking. Thus, a call has been issued for a robust and generic instrument to measure and enable evaluation of PCC across settings and patient groups. This study aimed to develop a generic questionnaire measuring patients' perceptions of PCC. Further aims were to evaluate its content and measurement properties using a mixed-methods approach entailing Rasch and qualitative content analyses.MethodsThe study was conducted in three iterative phases. Phase one included six key informants to gain a broad view of the concept. Phase two entailed a Delphi study involving two rounds with eight experts who generated ratings on relevance, readability, comprehensiveness and suggestions for revision. Data were analysed using the Item Content Validity Index in conjunction with qualitative comments to improve the questionnaire. Phase three was performed using a mixed-methods design. Quantitative data were collected from patients (n = 553) responding to the questionnaire who were recruited from six in- and outpatient care units in a health care region in Sweden. Data was analysed using the Rasch measurement model. Qualitative data were based on the respondents' free-text comments, cognitive interviews (n = 10) and field notes, and then analysed with deductive content analysis.ResultsA questionnaire was developed and operationalised based on the information given by key informants in phase one and then validated for its content by experts in phase two. In phase three Rasch analyses revealed problems with targeting, thresholds and two misfitting items. These problems were corroborated by data from the qualitative analyses, which also revealed some issues of wording and interpretation of items. When thresholds were resolved and two items removed, the questionnaire met the assumptions of the Rasch model.ConclusionsExperts gave the questionnaire content high ratings and it met measurement requirements assumed by the Rasch model after revisions. Those problems on targeting that remain need to be addressed in future studies. Meanwhile, we regard the questionnaire as of sufficient quality to be useful in benchmarking PCC.

Project description:ObjectivesTo ensure optimal implementation of person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), we assessed the readiness of Canadian healthcare organisations and explored their perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing and using PC-QIs.DesignMixed methods.Setting and participantsRepresentatives of Canadian healthcare delivery and coordinating organisations that guide the development and/or implementation of person-centred care (PCC) measurement. Representatives from primary care clinics and organisations from the province of Alberta, Canada also participated.MethodsWe conducted a survey with representatives of Canadian healthcare organisations. The survey comprised two sections that: (1) assessed readiness for using PC-QIs, and (2) were based on the Organizational Readiness for Change Assessment tool. We summarised the survey results using descriptive statistics. We then conducted follow-up interviews with organisations representing system and clinical-level perspectives to further explore barriers and facilitators to implementing PC-QIs. The interviews were informed by and analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsThirty-three Canadian regional healthcare organisations across all 13 provinces/territories participated in the survey. Only 5 of 26 PC-QIs were considered highly feasible to implement for 75% of organisations and included: coordination of care, communication, structures to report performance, engaging patients and caregivers and overall experience. A representative sample of 10 system-level organisations and 11 primary care organisations/clinics participated in the interviews. Key barriers identified were: resources and staff capacity for quality improvement, a shift in focus to COVID-19 and health provider motivation. Facilitators included: prioritisation of PCC measurement, leadership and champion engagement, alignment with ongoing provincial strategic direction and measurement efforts, and the use of technology for data collection, management and reporting.ConclusionsDespite high interest and policy alignment to use PC-QI 'readiness' to implement them effectively remains a challenge. Organisations need to be supported to collect, use and report PCC data to make the needed improvements that matter to patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate a county-wide deincentivisation of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) payment scheme for UK General Practice (GP).SettingIn 2014, National Health Service England signalled a move towards devolution of QOF to Clinical Commissioning Groups. Fifty-five GPs in Somerset established the Somerset Practice Quality Scheme (SPQS)-a deincentivisation of QOF-with the goal of redirecting resources towards Person Centred Coordinated Care (P3C), especially for those with long-term conditions (LTCs). We evaluated the impact on processes and outcomes of care from April 2016 to March 2017.Participants and designThe evaluation used data from 55 SPQS practices and 17 regional control practices for three survey instruments. We collected patient experiences ('P3C-EQ'; 2363 returns from patients with 1+LTC; 36% response rate), staff experiences ('P3C-practitioner'; 127 professionals) and organisational data ('P3C-OCT'; 36 of 55 practices at two time points, 65% response rate; 17 control practices). Hospital Episode Statistics emergency admission data were analysed for 2014-2017 for ambulatory-sensitive conditions across Somerset using interrupted time series.ResultsPatient and practitioner experiences were similar in SPQS versus control practices. However, discretion from QOF incentives resulted in time savings in the majority of practices, and SPQS practice data showed a significant increase in P3C oriented organisational processes, with a moderate effect size (Wilcoxon signed rank test; p=0.01; r=0.42). Analysis of transformation plans and organisational data suggested stronger federation-level agreements and informal networks, increased multidisciplinary working, reallocation of resources for other healthcare professionals and changes to the structure and timings of GP appointments. No disbenefits were detected in admission data.ConclusionThe SPQS scheme leveraged time savings and reduced administrative burden via discretionary removal of QOF incentives, enabling practices to engage actively in a number of schemes aimed at improving care for people with LTCs. We found no differences in the experiences of patients or healthcare professionals between SPQS and control practices.

Dataset Information

Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators.

Publications

Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets