Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients' and healthcare professionals' preferences and experience

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in care is a priority and a key component of clinical practice. Different approaches to care have been introduced to foster patient engagement. There is a lack of a recent review on tools for assessing the main concepts and dimensions related to patient engagement in care.

OBJECTIVE

Our scoping review sought to map and summarize recently validated tools for assessing various concepts and dimensions of patient engagement in care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A scoping review of recent peer-reviewed articles describing tools that assess preferences in and experience with patient engagement in care was conducted in four databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL-EBSCO). We adopted a broad definition based on the main concepts of patient engagement in care: patient-centredness, empowerment, shared decision-making and partnership in care.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 2161 articles found, 16, each describing a different tool, were included and analysed. Shared decision-making and patient-centredness are the two main concepts evaluated, often simultaneously in most of the tools. Only four scales measure patient-centredness, empowerment and shared decision-making at the same time, but no tool measures the core dimensions of partnership in care. Most of the tools did not include patients in their development or validation or just consulted them during the validation phase.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There is no tool coconstructed with patients from development to validation, which can be used to assess the main concepts and dimensions of patient engagement in care at the same time.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This manuscript was prepared with a patient expert who is one of the authors. Vincent Dumez, who is a patient expert and codirector of the Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public, has contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

Assessing and promoting partnership between patients and health-care professionals: Co-construction of the CADICEE tool for patients and their relatives

CONTEXT

Partnership between patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs.

OBJECTIVE

To co-construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs.

DESIGN

The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co-construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients' and HCPs' viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance.

RESULTS

The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The CADICEE tool is developed in co-construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health-care settings.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co-constructed it, pre-tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

External inspection of compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients.