Hacia nuevos planteamientos de calidad. El paciente como coprotagonista. Informe SESPAS 2008

Design and validation of an instrument to evaluate Person-Centered care in health services

BACKGROUND

The concept of quality in health care has evolved, placing greater importance on the patient's needs, culture, and social context, as well as their participation in clinical decision-making, as highlighted by Mead and Bower's Person-Centered Care Model. The aim of the present study was to design and validate an instrument to assess the extent to which healthcare services provided by PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) offer person-centered care according to user perceptions.

METHODS

The first phase comprised the development of 57 items based on the analysis of responses from an open-ended questionnaire administered to 30 users of Pemex healthcare services. This questionnaire was designed considering the four factors of the person-centered care model, however, the high correlation between the 4 factors (i.e., r ≥ .80) indicated an overfactoring effect and consequently an increase in the risk of overfitting. Therefore, an exhaustive analysis of the instrument was performed, starting with the review of the individual behavior of each item, and carrying out exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Using a sample of 330 individuals, an exploratory factor analysis was perfomed. Afterward, a confirmatory factorial analysis was carried out with 335 participants. Finally, a new confirmatory factorial analysis included 130 participants due to the refinements made in the previous phase. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω at every phase.

RESULTS

The exploratory factor analysis retained 35 items in a single factor that accounted for 49% of the variance with an internal consistency of Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.97. Because the factorial structure by confirmatory factorial analysis was unsatisfactory, the initial model was refined, leading to the retention of 11 items and a final model with adjustment index of χ2 = 127.53, χ2/gl = 2.89, RMSEA = 0.07, IC RMSEA 0.06 to 0.09, TLI = 0.95 and CFI = 0.96, with an internal consistency of Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.93. Due to the refinements, a new confirmatory factorial analysis was conducted with suitable goodness-of-fit criteria in most items (χ2 = 151.44, χ2/gl = 3.43, RMSEA = 0.13, IC RMSEA 0.11 to 0.16, TLI = 0.93 and CFI = 0.94), resulting in a Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.98.

CONCLUSIONS

The instrument exhibits suitable psychometric properties to be employed to measure the degree to which medical care is patient centered. This instrument represents a strategy for promoting an innovative healthcare model.

Barriers for an effective communication around clinical decision making: an analysis of the gaps between doctors' and patients' point of view

BACKGROUND

There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians.

STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor-patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.

[What do diabetic patients and what should they do to avoid errors in the course of treatment?]

OBJECTIVE

To report the precautions taken by diabetic patients to avoid treatment errors and to provide advice to increase their safety.

METHODS

A descriptive study of patients' behaviors to minimize errors and tips by professionals to improve safety. Ninety-nine insulin-treated patients were randomly recruited from 3 primary healthcare centers and 2 hospitals. An opportunity sample of 33 doctors and nurses was also surveyed.

RESULTS

Information of all prescriptions (p = 0.005), review of doubts before the visit (p = 0,009), and diet adherence (p = 0.02) were the only precautions reported by patients that related to a lower number of patient errors. Female patients better follow at home instructions for blood glucose monitoring (odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.6) and use pillboxes to avoid errors (odds ratio 0.23; 95% CI 0.1-0.6) more frequently than male patients. Male patients more commonly carry with them a card with information about allergies (odds ratio 5.03; 95% CI 1.4-17.5). Patients with a longer course of disease tend to withhold information about other treatments from their doctors (β -15.8; 95% CI -23.2-8.4). For healthcare professionals, safety may increase if patients: play a more active role in their treatment (91%), and inform their doctors about their different treatments (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

Promotion of patient autonomy, improved communication to patients, and systematic information about the most common medication errors may contribute to patient safety.