Dataset Information

Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prevalence of people with multimorbidity rises. Multimorbidity constitutes a challenge to the healthcare system, and treatment of patients with multimorbidity is prone to high-quality variations. Currently, no set of quality indicators (QIs) exists to assess quality of care, let alone incorporating the patient perspective. We therefore aim to identify aspects of quality of care relevant to the patients' perspective and match them to a literature-based set of QIs.

Methods

We conducted eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and three focus groups with patients' relatives using a semistructured guide. Data were analysed using Kuckartz's qualitative content analysis. We derived deductive categories from the literature, added inductive categories (new quality aspects) and translated them into QI.

Results

We created four new QIs based on the quality aspects relevant to patients/relatives. Two QIs (patient education/self-management, regular updates of medication plans) were consented by an expert panel, while two others were not (periodical check-ups, general practitioner-coordinated care). Half of the literature-based QIs, for example, assessment of biopsychosocial support needs, were supported by participants' accounts, while more technical domains regarding assessment and treatment regimens were not addressed in the focus groups.

Conclusion

We show that focus groups with patients and relatives adding relevant aspects in QI development should be incorporated by default in QI development processes and constitute a reasonable addition to traditional QI development. Our QI set constitutes a framework for assessing the quality of care in the German healthcare system. It will facilitate implementation of treatment standards and increase the use of existing guidelines, hereby helping to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare resources in the treatment of patients with multimorbidity.

Trial registration number

German clinical trials registry (DRKS00015718), Pre-Results.

SUBMITTER: Pohontsch NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208013 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeInformation regarding patients’ needs, fears and experiences/perceptions in the perioperative setting is limited. Through two focus groups, we explored the needs, fears and experiences of patients who had recently undergone, or were scheduled for, surgery under general anaesthesia, with regard to the entire perioperative process.Materials and MethodsAdults were invited to participate in a focus group if they had (a) undergone abdominal or gynaecological surgery with general anaesthesia in the past 4 months (focus group 1) or (b) been indicated for abdominal or gynaecological surgery and were waiting for the assigned surgery date (focus group 2). Discussions were audio recorded and, through thematic analysis, patients’ needs and experiences/perceptions regarding perioperative surgical stages were obtained/coded. Analysis of code co-occurrence was performed using a codes matrix.ResultsFocus groups consisted of 13 females, 1 male (50% aged >45 years). The immediate postoperative period generated the highest number of co-occurrences, followed by the indication of surgery. The most frequent code was the need for information, especially at the indication of surgery, the pre-anaesthesia clinic and in the postoperative period. Fears were described particularly at the indication of surgery, the waiting period, the surgical room, anaesthesia induction and the postoperative period, particularly after hospital discharge; pain was cited most commonly in the postoperative period. Stress/anxiety and emotional impact were also cited in the postoperative period including home arrival.ConclusionInformation collected in these patients’ focus groups should inform future research and healthcare planning. Patients demand receiving more comprehensive and understandable information and more involvement in several steps; this could reduce fears and stress/anxiety described across the perioperative process. Importantly, findings also extend to the postoperative period and home arrival.

Project description:BackgroundThe antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal periods are considered high-risk periods for the health of mothers and their newborns. Although the current utilization rate of some maternal and child care services in Jordan is encouraging, detailed information about the quality of these services is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the quality of maternal-fetal and newborn antenatal care (ANC), delivery, and postnatal care (PNC) services in Jordan.MethodsWe conducted 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) with pregnant and postpartum women who attended maternal-child care services in three major hospitals in Jordan. All FGDs were recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify themes and subthemes.ResultsThe content analysis of the FGDs revealed a consensus among the discussants regarding the importance of ANC and PNC services for the health of mothers and their newborns. However, the participating women viewed ANC to be much more important than PNC. With regards to the choice between public and private antenatal care services, some of the discussants were disposed towards the private sector. Reasons for this included longer consultation time, a higher quality of services, better interpersonal and communication skills of healthcare providers, better treatment, more advanced equipment and devices, availability of female obstetricians, and more flexible appointment times. These women only perceived public hospital services to be necessary in cases of pregnancy-related complications and labor, as the costs of private sector services in such cases are too high. The findings also revealed that mothers usually only seek PNC services to check up on their newborn's health and not their own.ConclusionVisiting private ANC clinics throughout pregnancy while giving birth in public facilities leads to the discontinuity and fragmentation in maternal-fetal and child healthcare services. To address this fragmentation, healthcare systems are proposed to establish interprofessional teamwork that requires different healthcare providers with complementary skills and practices in both public and private settings to work co-operatively and collectively. Investment in new technologies and interventions which enhance coordination and collaboration between public and private healthcare settings is necessary for the provision of non-traditional maternal healthcare.