Dataset Information

Quality and satisfaction with care following changes to the structure of obstetric care during the COVID-19 pandemic in a safety-net hospital in Georgia: Results from a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To understand perceived quality of obstetric care following changes to the structure of care in a safety-net institution during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study including a web-based survey (n = 67) and in-depth interviews (n = 16) between October 2020 and January 2021. We present a descriptive analysis of quantitative results and key qualitative themes on reactions to changes and drivers of perceived quality.

Results

Reported quality was high for in-person and phone visits (median subscale responses: 5/5). Respondents were willing to include phone visits in care for a future pregnancy (77.8% (49)) but preferred in-person visits (84.1% (53)). In interviews, provider communication was the key driver of quality. Respondents found changes to care to be inconvenient but acceptable.

Conclusions

To improve satisfaction with changes to care, health systems should ensure that relationship building remains a priority and offer patients information about the reason behind changes.

SUBMITTER: Stanhope KK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveWidespread delivery of high-quality care for acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors after hospital discharge requires a multidisciplinary team. We aimed to compare management approaches between nephrologists and primary care providers (PCPs) and explored strategies to optimize collaboration.Study designExplanatory sequential mixed-methods study using a case-based survey followed by semi-structured interviews.Setting & participantsNephrologists and PCPs providing AKI survivor care at 3 Mayo Clinic sites and the Mayo Clinic Health System were included.OutcomesSurvey questions and interviews elucidated participants' recommendations for post-AKI care.Analytical approachDescriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses. Qualitative data analysis used deductive and inductive strategies. A connecting and merging approach was used for mixed-methods data integration.Results148 of 774 (19%) providers submitted survey responses (24/72 nephrologists and 105/705 PCPs). Nephrologists and PCPs recommended laboratory monitoring and follow-up with a PCP shortly after hospital discharge. Both indicated that the need for nephrology referral, and its timing should be dictated by clinical and non-clinical patient-specific factors. There were opportunities for improvement in medication and comorbid condition management in both groups. Incorporation of multidisciplinary specialists (eg, pharmacists) was recommended to expand knowledge, optimize patient-centered care, and alleviate provider workload.LimitationsSurvey findings may have been affected by non-response bias and the unique challenges facing clinicians and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were from a single health system, and their views or experiences may differ from those in other health systems or serving different populations.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary team-based model of post-AKI care may facilitate implementation of a patient-centered care plan, improve adherence to best practices, and reduce clinician and patient burden. Individualizing care for AKI survivors based on clinical and non-clinical patient-specific factors is needed to optimize outcomes for patients and health systems.

Project description:BackgroundImproving family engagement in juvenile justice (JJ) system behavioral health services is a high priority for JJ systems, reform organizations, and family advocacy groups across the United States. Family-driven care (FDC) is a family engagement framework used by youth-serving systems to elevate family voice and decision-making power at all levels of the organization. Key domains of a family-driven system of care include: 1) identifying and involving families in all processes, 2) informing families with accurate, understandable, and transparent information, 3) collaborating with families to make decisions and plan treatments, 4) responding to family diversity and inclusion, 5) partnering with families to make organizational decisions and policy changes, 6) providing opportunities for family peer support, 7) providing logistical support to help families overcome barriers to participation, and 8) addressing family health and functioning. FDC enhances family participation, empowerment, and decision-making power in youth services; ultimately, improving youth and family behavioral health outcomes, enhancing family-child connectedness, and reducing youth recidivism in the JJ setting.MethodsWe evaluated staff-perceived adoption of the eight domains of FDC across detention and community services agencies in the state of Georgia. We collected mixed methods data involving surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews with JJ system administrators, staff, and practitioners between November 2021- July 2022. In total, 140 individuals from 61 unique JJ agencies participated in surveys; and 16 JJ key informants participated in qualitative interviews.ResultsFDC domains with the highest perceived adoption across agencies included identifying and involving families, informing families, collaborative decision-making and treatment planning, and family diversity and inclusion. Other domains that had mixed or lower perceived adoption included involving families in organizational feedback and policy making, family peer support, logistical support, and family health and functioning. Adoption of FDC domains differed across staff and organizational characteristics.ConclusionsFindings from this mixed methods assessment will inform strategic planning for the scale-up of FDC strategies across JJ agencies in the state, and serve as a template for assessing strengths and weaknesses in the application of family engagement practices in systems nationally.

Project description:BackgroundIn the transition towards value-based healthcare, patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) are recommended by international collaborations and government programs to guide clinical practice and quality improvement. For many conditions, using PROM/PREM over the complete continuum of care requires implementation across care organizations and disciplines. Along PROM/PREM implementation in obstetric care networks (OCN), we aimed to evaluate implementation outcomes and the processes influencing these outcomes in the complex context of care networks across the continuum of perinatal care.MethodsThree OCN in the Netherlands implemented PROM/PREM in routine practice, using an internationally developed outcomes set with care professionals and patient advocates. Their aim was to use PROM/PREM results individually to guide patient-specific care decisions and at group-level to improve quality of care. The implementation process was designed following the principles of action research: iteratively planning implementation, action, data generation and reflection to refine subsequent actions, involving both researchers and care professionals. During the one-year implementation period in each OCN, implementation outcomes and processes were evaluated in this mixed-methods study. Data generation (including observation, surveys and focus groups) and analysis were guided by two theoretical implementation frameworks: the Normalization Process Theory and Proctor's taxonomy for implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings were supplemented with survey data to solidify findings in a broader group of care professionals.ResultsCare professionals in OCN found the use of PROM/PREM acceptable and appropriate, recognized their benefits and felt facilitated in their patient-centered goals and vision. However, feasibility for daily practice was low, mainly due to IT issues and time constraints. Hence PROM/PREM implementation did not sustain, but strategies for future PROM/PREM implementation were formulated in all OCN. Processes contributing positively to implementation outcomes were internalization (understand the value) and initiation (driven by key-participants), whereas challenges in relational integration (maintain confidence) and reconfiguration (refine activities) affected implementation negatively.ConclusionAlthough implementation did not sustain, network-broad PROM/PREM use in clinic and quality improvement matched professionals' motivation. This study provides recommendations to implement PROM/PREM meaningfully in practice in ways that support professionals in their drive towards patient-centered care. In order for PROM/PREM to fulfill their potential for value-based healthcare, our work highlights the need for sustainable IT infrastructures, as well as an iterative approach to refine their complex implementation into local contexts.

Project description:BackgroundThe capacity to deliver essential health services has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly due to lockdown restrictions. Telemedicine provides a safe, efficient, and effective alternative that addresses the needs of patients and the health system. However, there remain implementation challenges and barriers to patient adoption in resource-limited settings as in the Philippines. This mixed methods study aimed to describe patient perspectives and experiences with telemedicine services, and explore the factors that influence telemedicine use and satisfaction.MethodsAn online survey consisting of items adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician & Group Adult Visit Survey 4.0 (beta) and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) was completed by 200 participants aged 18 to 65 years residing in the Philippines. A subsample of 16 participants was interviewed to provide further insights on their experiences. We used descriptive statistics to analyze survey data and thematically analyzed data from interviews guided by the principles of grounded theory.ResultsParticipants were generally satisfied with telemedicine, and found it to be an efficient and convenient means of receiving healthcare. About 3 in 5 perceived telemedicine as affordable, with some finding telemedicine costs to be high and comparable to in-person consultations. Our results suggest that participants preferred telemedicine services, especially in cases where they feel that their condition is not urgent and does not need extensive physical examination. Safety against COVID-19, privacy, accessibility, and availability of multiple communication platforms contributed to patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Negative perceptions of patients on quality of care and service related to their telemedicine provider, inherent limitations of telemedicine in the diagnosis and management of patients, perceived high costs especially for mental health conditions, and poor connectivity and other technological issues were barriers to telemedicine use and satisfaction.ConclusionTelemedicine is viewed as a safe, efficient, and affordable alternative to receiving care. Expectations of patients on costs and outcomes need to be managed by providers to increase satisfaction. Continued adoption of telemedicine will require improvements in technology infrastructure and technical support for patients, training and performance evaluation of providers to ensure quality of care and service, better patient communication to meet patient needs, and integration of telemedicine services in remote areas that have limited access to medical services. Telemedicine, to realize its full potential, should be centered in health equity - addressing patient barriers and needs, reducing health disparities across population groups and settings, and providing quality services to all.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is a prevalent health concern in the United States (US) and a frequent reason for patients to seek primary care. The challenges associated with developing effective pain management strategies can be perceived as a burden on the patient-provider relationship.ObjectiveThis study explored the relationship between patients' overall satisfaction with their primary care providers (PCPs) and their satisfaction with their chronic pain treatment, as well as the provider behaviors that contributed to chronic pain patients' satisfaction with their PCPs.DesignConcurrent nested mixed-methods design PARTICIPANTS: 97 patients with chronic pain who were assigned to the usual care arm of the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) study.ApproachWe analyzed phone interview and survey data (n?=?97). Interviews assessed provider behaviors that led to patient satisfaction. Interview transcripts were analyzed based on a content analysis approach. Survey responses assessed patient satisfaction with primary care and pain services. We calculated a Pearson's correlation coefficient using five response categories.Key resultsInterviews revealed that high satisfaction with primary care was driven by five concrete PCP behaviors: (1) listening, (2) maintaining communication with patients, (3) acting as an access point to comprehensive pain care, (4) providing an honest assessment of the possibilities of pain care, and (5) taking time during consultations with patients. In surveys, participants reported higher satisfaction with their primary care services than with the pain services they received; these variables were only moderately correlated (r?=?0.586).ConclusionsResults suggest that patients with chronic pain can view the relationship with their PCPs as positive, even in the face of low satisfaction with their pain treatment. The expectations that these patients held of PCPs could be met regardless of providers' ability to successfully relieve chronic pain.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the causes and levels of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for the low-income patients of safety net practices in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional survey in late 2020, employing quantitative and qualitative analyses.SettingSafety net practices in 20 US states.Participants2073 survey respondents (45.8% response rate) in primary care, dental and behavioural health disciplines working in safety net practices and participating in state and national education loan repayment programmes.MeasuresOrdinally scaled degree of moral distress experienced during the pandemic, and open-ended response descriptions of issues that caused most moral distress.ResultsWeighted to reflect all surveyed clinicians, 28.4% reported no moral distress related to work during the pandemic, 44.8% reported 'mild' or 'uncomfortable' levels and 26.8% characterised their moral distress as 'distressing', 'intense' or 'worst possible'. The most frequently described types of morally distressing issues encountered were patients not being able to receive the best or needed care, and patients and staff risking infection in the office. Abuse of clinic staff, suffering of patients, suffering of staff and inequities for patients were also morally distressing, as were politics, inequities and injustices within the community. Clinicians who reported instances of inequities for patients and communities and the abuse of staff were more likely to report higher levels of moral distress.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic's first 9 months, moral distress was common among these clinicians working in US safety net practices. But for only one-quarter was this significantly distressing. As reported for hospital-based clinicians during the pandemic, this study's clinicians in safety net practices were often morally distressed by being unable to provide optimal care to patients. New to the literature is clinicians' moral distress from witnessing inequities and other injustices for their patients and communities.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis affected 2.7 million people in India in 2017. The Revised National TB Control Programme has achieved milestones in coverage, however quality of TB care remains highly variable and often poor, with significant gaps in provider knowledge, practices, and patients consistently lost to follow-up. These quality gaps are largely informed by studies on provider practices or objective chart abstractions and case data. Per the knowledge of the author, no review has been conducted on first-hand patient perspectives on the quality of TB care they receive. This mixed-methods literature review aims to synthesize evidence on user-experience and patient satisfaction with TB care in India and inform areas for service quality improvement.MethodsFive medical databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for empirical studies on patient perspectives on TB health services published between January 1st, 2000 to December 31st, 2017. Studies in English with adult patients with any form of TB in the public or private health system were included. Studies prior to entering the health system, on distance to health facilities and cost were excluded. Seven Indian journals were hand searched and a grey literature search was conducted in GoogleScholar. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and thematic analysis was conducted by categorizing data using NVivo 12.ResultsA total of 498 studies were screened, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. 16 supplementary studies were identified from Indian journals and grey literature. Of the 39 total studies included most were quantitative (29; 74%), based in South India (17; 44%) and focused on drug-sensitive TB patients (19; 49%) within the public health system (25; 64%). Data collection methods were highly heterogenous which limited synthesis and comparisons across population demographics, health sectors, or regions. Overall quantitative patient satisfaction measured in seven studies was high. Two major themes identified were provider-related factors (n = 26 studies) and convenience (n = 25), and six minor themes were supplies and equipment availability (n = 12), confidence (n = 10), information and communication (n = 10), waiting time (n = 8), stigma (n = 4), and confidentiality (n = 4). Each reported positive and negative user-experiences. Most significantly, DOTS did not fit the daily needs and obligations of many patients, particularly due to conflicts with employment and frequency of visits; while positive provider support, information, and flexibility helped patients adhere to treatment.ConclusionAlthough quantitative patient satisfaction was found to be high, data were not collected using robust, validated tools. Qualitative and quantitative user-experiences in each theme were variable, making them both barriers and facilitators of good quality TB care. Poor user-experiences were often responsible for patients interrupting treatment or dropping out of TB care. Patient-centeredness, or user-friendliness of TB care can be improved by introducing individualized or flexible DOTS that is responsive to user circumstances and needs. User-experience data should be systematically collected using a standardized, national tool for identification of specific bottlenecks and successes in quality of TB care from the patients' perspective.