Search

Objective: The aim of the study was to develop and test an instrument, underpinned by a recognized theoretical framework, that examines how staff perceive person-centred practice, using proven methods of instrument design and psychometric analysis.Design: The study used a mixed method multiphase research design involving: two Delphi studies to agree definitions and items to measure the constructs aligned to the person-centred practice theoretical framework (Phase 1); and a large-scale quantitative cross-sectional survey (Phase 2).Setting: Phase 1 was an international study involving representatives from seven countries across Europe and Australia, with Phase 2 conducted in one country across five organizations.Participants: Two international panels of experts (n = 33) in person-centred practice took part in the Delphi study and a randomly selected sample of registered nurses (n = 703, 23.8%) drawn from across a wide range of clinical settings completed the Person-centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S).Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome is to establish a measure of staff perceptions of person-centred Practice.Results: Broad consensus on definitions relating to 17 constructs drawn from a person-centred practice framework was achieved after two rounds; likewise with the generation of 108 items to measure the constructs; a final instrument comprising 59 items with proven psychometric properties was achieved.Conclusions: The PCPI-S is psychometrically acceptable instrument validated by an international expert panel that maps specifically to a theoretical framework for person-centred practice and provides a generic measure of person-centredness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) endorses integrated palliative care which has a significant impact on quality of life and satisfaction with care. Effective integration between hospices, palliative care services, hospitals and primary care services are required to support patients with palliative care needs. Studies have indicated that little is known about which aspects are regarded as most important and should be priorities for international implementation. The Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) project, aimed to investigate integrated practices in Europe and to formulate requirements for effective palliative care integration. It aimed to develop recommendations, and to agree priorities, for integrated palliative care linked to the InSuP-C project. Methods: Transparent expert consultation was adopted at the approach used. Data were collected in two phases: 1) international transparent expert consultation using face-to-face roundtable discussions at a one day workshop in Brussels, and 2) via subsequent online cross-sectional survey where items were rated to indicate degree of agreement on their importance and ranked to indicate priority for implementation. Workshop discussions used content analysis to develop a list of 23 recommendations, which formed the survey questionnaire. Survey analysis used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of open responses. Results: Thirty-six international experts in palliative care and cancer care, including senior clinicians, researchers, leaders of relevant international organisations and funders, were invited to a face-to-face workshop. Data were collected from 33 (19 men, 14 women), 3 declined. They mostly came from European countries (31), USA (1) and Australia (1). Twenty one of them also completed the subsequent online survey (response rate 63%). We generated 23 written statements that were grouped into the organisational constructs: macro (10), meso (6) and micro (7) levels of integration of palliative care. Highest priority recommendations refer to education, leadership and policy-making, medium priority recommendations focused on funding and relationship-building, and lower priority recommendations related to improving systems and infrastructure. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that amongst a group of international experts there was overall good agreement on the importance of recommendations for integrated palliative care. Understanding expert's priorities is important and can guide practice, policymaking and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]