Establishing components of high-quality injury care: Focus groups with patients and patient families

A Qualitative Study of Patient Themes for the Quality of the Total Joint Arthroplasty Experience

Patients have limited involvement in the development of quality measures that address the experience of undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Current quality measures may not fully assess the aspects of care that are important to patients. The goal of this study was to understand quality of care in TJA from the patient perspective by exploring patients' knowledge gaps, experiences, and goals. The authors completed a prospective qualitative analysis of patients who had undergone hip or knee TJA. Patients completed an open-ended, structured questionnaire about the surgical and recovery process as it relates to quality of care. The authors used a phenomenologic approach and purposeful sampling to enroll 74 patients 6 to 8 weeks after TJA. Responses underwent thematic analysis. Codes were used to identify themes that were important to patients in quality of care in TJA. The authors identified 3 themes: (1) returning to activity without pain or complication, which included psychological, functional, and complication-related goals; (2) negotiating the physical and psychological challenges of recovery, which encompassed the need for assistance from the caregiver as well as psychological and physical barriers to recovery; and (3) being prepared and informed for the process of surgery, including physical, logistical, and psychological preparation. Both patients and health systems may benefit from efforts to address these patient-centered themes of quality care through quality measures for TJA (eg, improving the psychological challenges of recovery). Future quality measures, such as assessment of patient experience, may be made more patient centered if they measure and improve aspects of care that matter to patients. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(2):117-122.].

Patients' experiences and wellbeing after injury: A focus group study

Background

Injury can have physical, psychological and social consequences. It is unclear which factors have an impact on patients’ wellbeing after injury. This study aimed to explore, using focus groups, patients’ experiences and wellbeing after injury and which factors, impede or facilitate patients’ wellbeing.

Methods

Trauma patients, treated in the shock room of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, the Netherlands, participated in focus groups. Purposive sampling was used. Exclusion criteria were younger than 18 years old, severe traumatic brain injury, dementia, and insufficient knowledge of the Dutch language. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using coding technique open, axial, and selective coding, based on phenomenological approach.

Results

Six focus groups (3 to 7 participants) were held before data saturation was reached. In total, 134 patients were invited, 28 (21%) agreed to participate (Median age: 59.5; min. 18 –max. 84). Main reasons to decline were fear that the discussion would be too confronting or patients experienced no problems regarding the trauma or treatment. Participants experienced difficulties on physical (no recovery to pre-trauma level), psychological (fear of dying or for permanent limitations, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive dysfunction), social (impact on relatives and social support) wellbeing. These are impeding factors for recovery. However, good communication, especially clarity about the injury and expectations concerning recovery and future perspectives could help patients in surrendering to care. Patients felt less helpless when they knew what to expect.

Conclusions

This is the first study that explored patients’ experiences and wellbeing after injury. Patients reported that their injury had an impact on their physical, psychological, and social wellbeing up to 12 months after injury. Professionals with the knowledge of consequences after injury could improve their anticipation on patients’ need.

What can trauma patients' experiences and perspectives tell us about the perceived quality of trauma care? a qualitative study set within the UK National Health Service

The global drive for improvements in the efficiency and quality of healthcare has led to the development of frameworks to assist in defining and measuring 'good quality care'. However, such frameworks lack a systematic or meaningful definition of what 'good quality care' means from the patients' perspective. The present research provides an in-depth analysis of patients' experiences in a hospital setting from a quality of care perspective. Forty-five adults (aged 16-70) hospitalised in one of four UK NHS trusts following an unintentional injury were interviewed about their experiences of care. The findings show variability in perceived quality of care within the same hospital episode which cannot be meaningfully captured by existing frameworks. The context of trauma care (e.g. distressing nature of injury, patient vulnerability, expectations of hospitalisation and participants' interaction with different service providers) defined the care experience and the value of being 'cared for'. Participants identified some aspects of good and care which related to holistic, person-centred and personalised care beyond the medical needs. Participants discussed the value of being understood, staff thinking of their needs beyond hospitalisation, staff trying 'their best' despite constrains of current care, having their emotional needs recognised and addressed and staff competence. Patients reported also poor quality of care and 'not being cared for' by specific staff groups which they expected to fulfil this role, rushed and unsympathetic care, lack of recognition for emotional impact of injury mapped onto existing quality frameworks e.g. safety, equity, accessibility and patient-centeredness as well as quality of interaction with providers, empathetic care which extended beyond medical needs, coordination of care, and the positivity of care delivery as important dimensions of quality care with implications for their recovery. The findings have implications for quality frameworks and theoretical definitions of quality of care; they demonstrate the importance of patient experience in addition to clinical effectiveness and safety as an essential dimension of quality care. In terms of practice, the findings support the need to incorporate knowledge and training of injured adults' psychological needs, and the value of interaction with professionals as a patient defined dimension of the quality of care.

Defining Quality in Hand Surgery From the Patient's Perspective: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Quality measures are used to evaluate health care delivery. They are traditionally developed from the physician and health system viewpoint. This approach can lead to quality measures that promote care that may be misaligned with patient values and preferences. We completed an exploratory, qualitative study to identify how patients with hand problems define high-quality care. Our purpose was to develop a better understanding of the surgery and recovery experience of hand surgery patients, specifically focusing on knowledge gaps, experience, and the surgical process.

METHODS

A steering committee (n = 10) of patients who had previously undergone hand surgery reviewed and revised an open-ended survey. Ninety-nine patients who had undergone hand surgery at 2 tertiary care institutions completed the open-ended, structured questionnaire during their 6- to 8-week postoperative clinic visit. Two reviewers completed a thematic analysis to generate subcodes and codes to identify themes in high-quality care from the patient's perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes of high-quality care: (1) Being prepared and informed for the process of surgery, (2) Regaining hand function without pain or complication, (3) Patients and caregivers negotiating the physical and psychological challenges of recovery, and (4) Financial and logistical burdens of undergoing hand surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple areas that patients identify as representing high-quality care are not reflected in current quality measures for hand surgery. The patient-derived themes of high-quality care can inform future patient-centered quality measure development.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Efforts to improve health care delivery may have the greatest impact by addressing areas of care that are most valued by patients. Such areas include patient education, system navigation, the recovery process, and cost.

Unwarranted clinical variation in the care of children and young people hospitalised for injury: a population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Injury is a leading cause of death and disability among children and young people. Recovery may be negatively affected by unwarranted clinical variation such as representation to an emergency department (ED), readmission to a hospital, and mortality. The aim of this study was to examine unwarranted clinical variation across providers of care of children and young people who were hospitalised for injury in New South Wales (NSW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked ED, hospital, and mortality data of all children and young people aged ≤25 years who were injured and hospitalised during 1 January 2010-30 June 2014 in NSW. Unwarranted clinical variation across providers was examined using three indicators. That is, for each hospital that treated ≥100 cases per year, risk standardised ratios were calculated with 95% and 99.8% confidence limits using the number of observed and expected events of (1) representations to ED within 72 h, (2) unplanned readmissions to hospital within 28 days, and (3) all-cause mortality within 30 days.

RESULTS

There were 189,990 injury-related hospitalisations of children and young people. Of these, 4.4% represented to an ED, 8.7% were readmitted to hospital, and 0.2% died. Of the 45 public hospitals that treated ≥100 cases per year, higher than expected rates of ED representations, hospital readmissions, and mortality were observed in eleven, six, and two hospitals, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The rates of ED representations, hospital readmissions, and mortality among children and young people hospitalised for injury in NSW were similar to the rates reported in other countries. However, unwarranted clinical variation across public hospitals was observed for all three indicators. These findings suggest that by improving routine follow-up support services post-discharge for children and young people and their families, it may be possible to reduce unwarranted clinical variation and improve health outcomes.

Trauma patient discharge and care transition experiences: Identifying opportunities for quality improvement in trauma centres

BACKGROUND

Challenges delivering quality care are especially salient during hospital discharge and care transitions. Severely injured patients discharged from a trauma centre will go either home, to rehabilitation or another acute care hospital with complex management needs. This purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of trauma patients and families treated in a regional academic trauma centre to better understand and improve their discharge and care transition experiences.

METHODS

A qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis was conducted between March and October 2016. Telephone interviews were conducted with trauma patients and/or a family member after discharge from the trauma centre. Data collection and analysis were completed inductively and iteratively consistent with a qualitative approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-four interviews included 19 patients and 7 family members. Participants' experiences drew attention to discharge and transfer processes that either (1) Fostered quality discharge or (2) Impeded quality discharge. Fostering quality discharge was ward staff preparation efforts; establishing effective care continuity; and, adequate emotional support. Impeding discharge quality was perceived pressure to leave the hospital; imposed transfer decisions; and, sub-optimal communication and coordination around discharge. Patient-provider communication was viewed to be driven by system, rather than patient need. Inter-facility information gaps raised concern about receiving facilities' ability to care for injured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of trauma patient discharge and transition experiences is undermined by system- and ward-level processes that compete, rather than align, in producing high quality patient-centred discharge. Local improvement solutions focused on modifiable factors within the trauma centre include patient-oriented discharge education and patient navigation; however, these approaches alone may be insufficient to enhance patient experiences. Trauma patients encounter complex barriers to quality discharge that likely require a comprehensive, multimodal intervention.

Using Evidence To Inform Practice and Policy To Enhance the Quality of Care for Persons with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

In today's economic climate, there is a need to demonstrate a return on investment for healthcare spending and for clinical practice and policy to be informed by evidence. Navigating this process is difficult for decision-makers, clinicians, and researchers alike. This article will describe how a knowledge translation framework and an evidence-based policy-making process were integrated to clarify the problem, frame options, and plan implementation, to impact clinical practice and policy in the area of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). The Access to Care and Timing (ACT) project is focused on optimizing the access and timing of specialized healthcare delivery for persons sustaining a tSCI in Canada. A simulation model was developed that uses current patient data to address complex problems faced by the healthcare system. At a workshop, participants stressed the importance of linking interventions to short- and long-term outcomes to drive change. Presently, there are no national, system level indicators to monitor performance after tSCI. Although the ideal system of care after tSCI is unknown, indicator collection will establish a baseline to measure improvement. The workshop participants prioritized two indicators important from the clinician and patient perspective-timely admission to rehabilitation and meaningful community participation. The ACT simulation model for tSCI care will be used to promote the uptake of identified indicators and provide a predictive link between interventions on potential outcomes. The standardized collection of outcome-oriented indicators will help to evaluate the access and timing of care and to define the ideal system of care after SCI.

Patient Experiences of Trauma Resuscitation

Importance

Patient satisfaction is an increasingly common feature of quality measurement, and patient-centered care is a key aspect of high-quality clinical care. Incorporating patient preferences in an acute context, such as trauma resuscitation, presents distinct challenges; however, to our knowledge, patients' experiences of trauma resuscitation have not been explored.

Objectives

To describe patient experiences of trauma resuscitation and to identify opportunities to improve patient experience without compromising speed or thoroughness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative, descriptive study was conducted at an urban, academic, level I trauma center. Semistructured interviews and video observations were conducted from May to December 2015. Interview participants were adult English-speaking patients who had experienced trauma resuscitation and were clinically stable with no alteration in consciousness. We recruited interview participants and conducted video observations until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 30 interviews and 20 observations. Video observation patients did not overlap with interview participants. The purposive sample included equal numbers of violently and nonviolently injured patients. Data were analyzed for thematic content from June 2015 to April 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes reported are themes of patient experience.

Results

Of 30 interview participants, 25 were men (83.3%), and 21 were black (70.0%). Of 20 video observation patients, 16 were men (80.0%), and 17 were black (85.0%). Salient aspects of patient experience of trauma resuscitation included emotional responses, physical experience, nonclinical concerns, treatment and procedures, trauma team members' interactions, communication, and comfort. Participants drew satisfaction from trauma team members' demeanor, expertise, and efficiency and valued clear clinical communication, as well as words of reassurance. Dissatisfaction stemmed from the perceived absence of these attributes and from participants' emotional or physical discomfort. Observation data added insight into the components of care that may have contributed to participants' responses and those aspects of care that were not salient to participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the urgency of trauma care limits explicit discussion and consideration of patient priorities, we found that patient concerns corresponded well with trauma team goals. Patients perceived trauma team members as competent, efficient, and caring. Focusing on patient communication could further improve patient-centeredness in this setting.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care.

BACKGROUND

Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care.

METHODS

Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

Multicenter validation of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM)

BACKGROUND

Incorporating patient and family perspectives into injury care quality assessment is a necessary part of comprehensive quality improvement. However, tools to measure patient and family perspectives of injury care are lacking. Therefore, our objective was to assess the psychometric properties of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM), the first measure developed to assess patient experiences with overall injury care.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study of adult injury patients recruited from three trauma centers. Patients or surrogates completed an acute care survey measure in the hospital and a post-acute care survey measure after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Four hundred participants (78%) completed the acute care measure, and 207 (59%) completed the post-acute care measure. We identified three subscales on the acute measure and two subscales on the post-acute measure. All subscales and items had evidence of construct validity. Four subscales had good internal consistency, and three were independent predictors of participants' overall ratings of injury care quality. The majority of items demonstrated suitable test-retest reliability. Comparison of QTAC-PREM scores with those of an existing patient experience tool, the Hospital version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), demonstrated evidence of appropriate divergent and convergent validity.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the QTAC-PREM is feasible to implement at trauma centers and provides evidence of validity and reliability. The tool may be useful to incorporate patient perspectives into trauma care quality measurement and improvement.

Engaging the Public to Identify Opportunities to Improve Critical Care: A Qualitative Analysis of an Open Community Forum

Objective

To engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients.

Design

A qualitative content analysis of an open community forum (Café Scientifique).

Setting

Public venue in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Participants

Members of the general public including patients, families of patients, health care providers, and members of the community at large.

Methods

A panel of researchers, decision-makers, and a family member led a Café Scientifique, an informal dialogue between the populace and experts, over three-hours to engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. Conventional qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. The inductive analysis occurred in three phases: coding, categorizing, and developing themes.

Results

Thirty-eight members of the public (former ICU patients, family members of patients, providers, community members) attended. Participants focused the discussion and provided concrete suggestions for improvement around communication (family as surrogate voice, timing of conversations, decision tools) and provider well-being and engagement, as opposed to medical interventions in critical care.

Conclusions

Café participants believe patient and family centered care is important to ensure high-quality care in the ICU. A Café Scientifique is a valuable forum to engage the public to contribute to priority setting areas for research in critical care, as well as a platform to share lived experience. Research stakeholders including health care organizations, governments, and funding organizations should provide more opportunities for the public to engage in meaningful conversations about how to best improve healthcare.