Purpose: Specialty care coordination relies on information flowing bidirectionally between all three participants in the "specialty care triad" - patients, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists. Measures of coordination should strive to account for the perspectives of each. As we previously developed two surveys to measure coordination of specialty care as experienced by PCPs and specialists, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a related survey of specialty care coordination as experienced by the patient, thereby completing the suite of surveys among the triad.
Methods: We developed a draft survey based on literature review, patient interviews, adaptation of existing measures, and development of new items. Survey responses were collected via mail and online in two waves, August 2019-November 2019 and September 2020-May 2021, among patients (N=939) receiving medical specialty care and primary care in the Veterans Affairs health system. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess scale structure. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship of the final coordination scales to patients' overall experience of specialty care coordination.
Results: A 38-item measure representing 10 factors that assess the patient's experience of coordination in specialty care among the patient, PCP, and specialist was finalized. Scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and, together, explained 59% of the variance in overall coordination. Analyses revealed an unexpected construct describing organization of care between patient and specialist that accounted for patient goals and preferences; this 10-item scale was named Patient-Centered Care Coordination.
Conclusions: The final survey, Coordination of Specialty Care - Patient, or CSC-Patient for short, is a reliable instrument that can be used alone or with its companions (CSC-PCP, CSC-Specialist) to provide a detailed assessment of specialty care coordination and identify targets for coordination improvement.
Purpose: Current guidelines recommend debriefing following medical resuscitations to improve patient outcomes. The goal of this study was to describe national trends in postresuscitation debriefing practices among pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows to identify potential gaps in fellow education.
Methods: A 13-item survey was distributed to fellows in all 76 ACGME-accredited PCCM programs in the United States in the spring of 2021. The online survey addressed frequency and timing of debriefings following medical resuscitations, whether formal training is provided, which medical professionals are present, and providers' comfort level leading a debriefing. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: A total of 102 responses (out of a possible N of 536) were gathered from current PCCM fellows. All fellows (100%) reported participation in a medical resuscitation. Only 21% stated that debriefings occurred after every resuscitation event, and 44% did not follow a structured protocol for debriefing. While 66% reported feeling very or somewhat comfortable leading the debriefing, 19% felt either somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable. A vast majority (92%) of participating fellows believed that debriefing would be helpful in improving team member performance during future resuscitations, and 92% expressed interest in learning more about debriefing.
Conclusions: The majority of PCCM fellows do not receive formal training on how to lead a debriefing. Given that 74% of fellows in our study did not feel very comfortable leading a debriefing but almost universally expressed that this practice is useful for provider well-being and performance, there is a clear need for increased incorporation of debriefing training into PCCM curricula across the United States.
Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement.
Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers.
Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome.
Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.
Purpose: A growing number of refugee groups are seeking care within the U.S. health care system for medical, psychological, and social needs. Research is limited in understanding refugee-specific conceptualizations of helping relationships and provider characteristics that improve interactions in health systems. This study aimed to identify provider characteristics that facilitate engagement and helpfulness in a refugee-specific population from refugee participant voices to inform future practices of health care clinics.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews with refugee participants were conducted to assess 1) experiences moving on from difficult experiences, 2) engagement with the health system, and 3) provider characteristics that facilitated engagement and healing. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach.
Results: An emergent theory was revealed on refugee-defined provider characteristics that facilitated healing and engagement in the health system. Providers who support an individual's story to be told, show awareness of barriers to accessing resources and prioritization of addressing barriers, maintain cultural humility, and demonstrate compassion, empathy, warmth, and openness toward patient engagement were the primary characteristics that facilitated engagement and healing.
Conclusions: Utilization of engagement strategies by providers at the onset of treatment is critical to providing culturally sensitive health care. Nonspecific but essential provider characteristics are thought to improve relational dynamics, trust-building, and overall engagement in the U.S. health care system from the perspective of refugee participants.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：