Dataset Information

What do patients expect? Assessing patient-centredness from the patients' perspective: an interview study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Although there has been much conceptual work on patient-centredness (PC), patients' perspectives on PC were neglected. In a previous study, participating patients rated the relevance of 16 dimensions of an integrative model of PC as high to very high. However, it remained unclear which specific behaviours described in the dimensions were considered most relevant. Thus, the aim of the current study was to further explore which of the specific behaviours described in the model are especially relevant for the high ratings in the previous study.

Methods and design

We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 patients with chronic diseases (16 females, 4 males, mean age: 52 years). Patients answered questions regarding their experiences in the German healthcare system and how optimal healthcare would look like from their perspective. Furthermore, patients were asked to reflect on the most important aspects which they had mentioned in the interview before. Data were analysed via content analysis.

Results

Participants addressed many different aspects of PC, but mostly focused on three major themes: (1) time appropriate access to care, (2) competence, empathy and being taken seriously by HCPs, (3) HCPs' individual consideration of each patient's situation (eg, wishes and needs). Minor themes were: (1) taking a holistic perspective of the patient, (2) patient-centred communication, (3) integration of multidisciplinary treatment elements, (4) transparency regarding waiting time and (5) reduction of unequal access to care.

Conclusion

This study enriches the construct of PC by depicting essential aspects of PC from the patients' perspective. The results allow prioritising strategies to implement patient-centred care. Thus, this study helps to pursue the ultimate goal of fostering patient-centred healthcare delivery in Germany.

SUBMITTER: Zeh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To combat overcrowding in emergency departments, ambulance clinicians (ACs) are being encouraged to make on-site assessments regarding patients' need for conveyance to hospital, and this is creating new and challenging demands for ACs. This study aimed to describe ACs' experiences of assessing non-conveyed patients. DESIGN:A phenomenological interview study based on a reflective lifeworld research approach. SETTING:The target area for the study was Stockholm, Sweden, which has a population of approximately 2.3 million inhabitants. In this area, 73 ambulances perform approximately just over 200 000 ambulance assignments annually, and approximately 25 000 patients are non-conveyed each year. INFORMANTS:11 ACs. METHODS:In-depth open-ended interviews. RESULTS:ACs experience uncertainty regarding the accuracy of their assessments of non-conveyed patients. In particular, they fear conducting erroneous assessments that could harm patients. Avoiding hasty decisions is important for conducting safe patient assessments. Several challenging paradoxes were identified that complicate the non-conveyance situation, namely; responsibility, education and feedback paradoxes. The core of the responsibility paradox is that the increased responsibility associated with non-conveyance assessments is not accompanied with appropriate organisational support. Thus, frustration is experienced. The education paradox involves limited and inadequate non-conveyance education. This, in combination with limited support from non-conveyance guidelines, causes the clinical reality to be perceived as challenging and problematic. Finally, the feedback paradox relates to the obstruction of professional development as a result of an absence of learning possibilities after assessments. Additionally, ACs also described loneliness during non-conveyance situations. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that, for ACs, performing non-conveyance assessments means experiencing a paradoxical professional existence. Despite these aggravating paradoxes, however, complex non-conveyance assessments continue to be performed and accompanied with limited organisational support. To create more favourable circumstances and, hopefully, safer assessments, further studies that focus on these paradoxes and non-conveyance are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wearables, fitness apps, and patient home monitoring devices are used increasingly by patients and other individuals with lifestyle challenges. All Danish general practitioners (GPs) use digital health records and electronic health (eHealth) consultations on a daily basis, but how they perceive the increasing demand for lifestyle advice and whether they see eHealth as part of their lifestyle support should be explored further. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore GPs' perspectives on eHealth devices and apps and the use of eHealth in supporting healthy lifestyle behavior for their patients and themselves. METHODS:A total of 10 (5 female and 5 male) GPs were recruited by purposive sampling, aged 38 to 69 years (mean 51 years), of which 4 had an urban uptake of patients and 6 a rural uptake. All of them worked in the region of Southern Denmark where GPs typically work alone or in partnership with 1 to 4 colleagues and all use electronic patient health records for prescription, referral, and asynchronous electronic consultations. We performed qualitative, semistructured, individual in-depth interviews with the GPs in their own office about how they used eHealth and mHealth devices to help patients challenged with lifestyle issues and themselves. We also interviewed how they treated lifestyle-challenged patients in general and how they imagined eHealth could be used in the future. RESULTS:All GPs had smartphones or tablets, and everyone communicated on a daily basis with patients about disease and medicine via their electronic health record and the internet. We identified 3 themes concerning the use of eHealth: (1) how eHealth is used for patients; (2) general practitioners' own experience with improving lifestyle and eHealth support; and (3) relevant coaching techniques for transformation into eHealth. CONCLUSIONS:GPs used eHealth frequently for themselves but only infrequently for their patients. GPs are familiar with behavioral change techniques and are ready to use them in eHealth if they are used to optimize processes and not hinder other treatments. Looking ahead, education of GPs and recognizing patients' ability and preference to use eHealth with regard to a healthy living are needed.