A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts

Patient-centered outcomes and outcome measurements for people aged 65 years and older-a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The aging population is a challenge for the healthcare system that must identify strategies that meet their needs. Practicing patient-centered care has been shown beneficial for this patient-group. The effect of patient-centered care is called patient-centered outcomes and can be appraised using outcomes measurements.

OBJECTIVES

The main aim was to review and map existing knowledge related to patient-centered outcomes and patient-centered outcomes measurements for older people, as well as identify key-concepts and knowledge-gaps. The research questions were: How can patient-centered outcomes for older people be measured, and which patient-centered outcomes matters the most for the older people?

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

Search for relevant publications in electronical databases, grey literature databases and websites from year 2000 to 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full text review and extraction of data using a data extraction framework.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included, of which six with involvement of patients and/or experts in the process on determine the outcomes. Outcomes that matter the most to older people was interpreted as: access to- and experience of care, autonomy and control, cognition, daily living, emotional health, falls, general health, medications, overall survival, pain, participation in decision making, physical function, physical health, place of death, social role function, symptom burden, and time spent in hospital. The most frequently mentioned/used outcomes measurements tools were the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), EQ-5D, Gait Speed, Katz- ADL index, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), SF/RAND-36 and 4-Item Screening Zarit Burden Interview.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have investigated the older people's opinion of what matters the most to them, which forms a knowledge-gap in the field. Future research should focus on providing older people a stronger voice in what they think matters the most to them.

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the "Standards" as a frame of reference.

METHODS

First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the "Standards" framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences.

DISCUSSION

The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the "Standards" are. This can affect clinical practice because people's health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.

Development of person-centred quality indicators for aged care assessment services in Australia: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

This study developed a proposed set of person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for services that assess older adults' care and support needs to determine their eligibility to receive government-funded aged care services in Australia. Individual proposed PC-QIs amenability for change within current organizational structures were explored. Barriers and opportunities to adapt service elements of the aged care assessment service to better align with the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified.

METHODS

A mixed methods study was conducted over five phases. A scoping review identified domains of quality for aged care services as perceived by older adults. Service elements of an aged care assessment service were mapped alongside quality domains informing key attributes of each quality domain. Self-determination theory was used to formulate each proposed PC-QI to align with key attributes and quality domains. Consultation with a consumer group enabled revision of the proposed PC-QIs. A focus group with clinicians evaluated the amenability of each proposed PC-QI for change and identified barriers and opportunities to better align service elements with older adults' perceptions of quality. Results were informed by qualitative and quantitative data from a structured focus group. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive thematic approach by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Twenty-four proposed PC-QIs were developed. Refinement to descriptors of the proposed PC-QIs were made by the consumer group (n = 18) and all were affirmed as being amenable to change by aged care assessors. Barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified across five domains including: health care staff knowledge (18.7%; n = 3); clear communication (31%; n = 5); person-centred approach (18.7%; n = 3); respect for client (18.7%; n = 3); and collaborative partnership with client (12%; n = 2). Participants made 21 recommendations. Of the five service elements in delivering an aged care assessment service, barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified at the intake and booking of an assessment and during the assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations identified provide assessment services guidance on ways to adapt service elements to better align with older adults' perceptions of quality.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and carers were involved as collaborators in this project at the protocol stage which included participating in discussions regarding the refining and modification of the protocol, refinement of the proposed PC-QIs, data collection forms and supplementary information for participants.

On the relation between decision quality and autonomy in times of patient-centered care: a case study

It is commonplace that care should be patient-centered. Nevertheless, no universally agreed-upon definition of patient-centered care exists. By consequence, the relation between patient-centered care as such and ethical principles cannot be investigated. However, some research has been performed on the relation between specific models of patient-centered care and ethical principles such as respect for autonomy and beneficence. In this article, I offer a detailed case study on the relationship between specific measures of patient-centered care and the ethical principle of respect for autonomy. Decision Quality Instruments (DQIs) are patient-centered care measures that were developed by Karen Sepucha and colleagues. The model of patient-centered care that guided the development of these DQIs pays special attention to the ethical principle of respect for autonomy. Using Jonathan Pugh's theory of rational autonomy, I will investigate how the DQIs relate to patient autonomy. After outlining Pugh's theory of rational autonomy and framing the DQIs accordingly (Part I), I will investigate whether the methodological choices made while developing these DQIs align with respect for autonomy (Part II). My analysis will indicate several tensions between DQIs and patient autonomy that could result in what I call "structural paternalism." These tensions offer us sufficient reasons, especially given the importance of the ethical principle of respect for autonomy, to initiate a more encompassing debate on the normative validity of Decision Quality Instruments. The aim of the present paper is to highlight the need for, and to offer a roadmap to, this debate.

Co-designing person-centred quality indicator implementation for primary care in Alberta: a consensus study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to contribute to developing practical guidance for implementing person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for primary care in Alberta, Canada. As a first step in this process, we conducted stakeholder-guided prioritization of PC-QIs and implementation strategies. Stakeholder engagement is necessary to ensure PC-QI implementation is adapted to the context and local needs.

METHODS

We used an adapted nominal group technique (NGT) consensus process. Panelists were presented with 26 PC-QIs, and implementation strategies. Both PC-QIs and strategies were identified from our extensive previous engagement of patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, and quality improvement leaders. The NGT objectives were to: 1. Prioritize PC-QIs and implementation strategies; and 2. Facilitate the participation of diverse primary care stakeholders in Alberta, including patients, healthcare providers, and quality improvement staff. Panelists participated in three rounds of activities. In the first, panelists individually ranked and commented on the PC-QIs and strategies. The summarized results were discussed in the second-round face-to-face group meeting. For the last round, panelists provided their final individual rankings, informed by the group discussion. Finally, we conducted an evaluation of the consensus process from the panelists' perspectives.

RESULTS

Eleven primary care providers, patient partners, and quality improvement staff from across Alberta participated. The panelists prioritized the following PC-QIs: 'Patient and caregiver involvement in decisions about their care and treatment'; 'Trusting relationship with healthcare provider'; 'Health information technology to support person-centred care'; 'Co-designing care in partnership with communities'; and 'Overall experience'. Implementation strategies prioritized included: 'Develop partnerships'; 'Obtain quality improvement resources'; 'Needs assessment (stakeholders are engaged about their needs/priorities for person-centred measurement)'; 'Align measurement efforts'; and 'Engage champions'. Our evaluation suggests that panelists felt that the process was valuable for planning the implementation and obtaining feedback, that their input was valued, and that most would continue to collaborate with other stakeholders to implement the PC-QIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates the value of co-design and participatory approaches for engaging stakeholders in adapting PC-QI implementation for the primary care context in Alberta, Canada. Collaboration with stakeholders can promote buy-in for ongoing engagement and ensure implementation will lead to meaningful improvements that matter to patients and providers.

Codesigning person-centred quality indicators with diverse communities: A qualitative patient engagement study

Introduction

Effective 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.

Methods

Drawing 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.

Results

Eight 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.

Conclusion

Incorporating patient and community voices requires addressing issues related to equity and understanding barriers to effective and meaningful engagement.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patient 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.

Incorporating Patient Narratives to Enhance Audiological Care and Clinical Research Outcomes

Purpose The engagement of patients as key stakeholders in their experience of care processes is a critical component of quality improvement efforts for both clinical care and translational research. Increasingly, health care systems are soliciting input from patients on care processes and experiences through surveys, patient interviews, and patient video narratives. The purpose of this viewpoint article is twofold: (a) to describe the increasing role of patient narratives about their experiences with adverse health conditions to inform patient-centered research and quality improvement efforts and (b) to present three patient narratives that highlight the real-world impacts of hearing loss and tinnitus, the life enhancing impacts of aural rehabilitation, and the importance of prospective ototoxicity monitoring in individuals with complex health conditions. Conclusion Patient narratives provide individual patient perspectives that can be used to build awareness of the range of experiences and impact of hearing disorders, and to explore patient preferences for when and how to implement hearing-related clinical services.

Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

The so-called Person-Centered Care (PCC) model identifies three fundamental principles: changing the focus of attention from the disease to the person, individualizing care, and promoting empowerment. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) has gained wide acceptance as a measure of PCC in recent years due to its brevity and simplicity, as well as its ease of application and interpretation. The objective of this study is to carry out a reliability generalization meta-analysis to estimate the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyze possible factors that may affect it, such as the year of publication, the care context, the application method, and certain sociodemographic properties of the study sample. The mean value of α for the 25 samples of the 23 studies in the meta-analysis was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.84), with high heterogeneity (squared-I = 85.83%). The only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. The results show that the P-CAT gives acceptably consistent scores when its use is oriented toward the description and investigation of groups, although it may be affected by variables such as the age of participants.

Using implementation science to inform the integration of electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) into healthcare quality improvement: description of a theory-based application in primary care

BACKGROUND

Collecting and monitoring the information from patients through patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) about the quality of care they receive is important for tracking changes in healthcare quality, stimulate innovation, and enhance person-centred care. The objective of this theoretical paper is to discuss the use of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks to inform and evaluate the integration of the electronic collection of PREMs (ePREMs) in healthcare quality improvement for primary care in Canada.

METHODS

To assess potential knowledge-to-practice gaps in implementing ePREMs in primary care in Alberta, the overarching implementation model that will be used is the Knowledge to Action Cycle. An integrated knowledge translation approach will ensure ongoing engagement of key stakeholders (e.g. primary care providers, patients) throughout the study. ePREM implementation will be informed by the identification of barriers and facilitators to implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR brings an organizational perspective providing an opportunity to explore the intervention characteristics, the context of implementation, individual factors, and the processes that influence implementation of ePREMs in healthcare. Identified barriers and facilitators to ePREM implementation will be mapped to evidence-based implementation strategies and prioritized by stakeholders. The RE-AIM framework will be used to guide the evaluation of ePREM implementation outcomes after six months of implementation by assessing Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (sustainability).

DISCUSSION

Consultations with stakeholders affirm the importance of using integrated knowledge translation approaches and the need to better understand how to integrate ePREMs in primary care. Using an implementations science approach, this study can provide guidance for mitigating important ePREM implementation challenges and promote the successful uptake and use of ePREMs for quality improvement in healthcare.