Search

Introduction: The implementation and evaluation of patient participation to obtain high‐quality transitional care for older people is an international priority. Intermediate care (IC) services are regarded as an important part of the patient's pathway from the specialist to the primary care levels, bridging the gap between the hospital and the home. Patients may experience varying capacities and conditions for patient participation. Yet, few tools for evaluating patients' preferences for patient participation within IC services are at hand. Accordingly, further knowledge is needed to understand and scaffold processes for patient participation in IC. Therefore, the aim of this project was to translate, validate and pilot test the Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (the 4Ps) with patients in IC services in Norway. Methods: This project comprised two phases: (1) a careful translation and cultural adaptation process, followed by a content validity trial among 15 patients and staff in Norwegian IC and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of the instrument with 60 patients admitted to IC. Results: The translation between Swedish and Norwegian required no conceptual or contextual adaptations. The subsequent cross‐sectional study, designed as a dialogue between the patients and staff, revealed that only 50% of the participants received a sufficient level of patient participation based on their preferences, mostly indicating that patients were receiving less‐than‐preferred conditions for engaging in their health and healthcare issues. Conclusion: The 4Ps instrument was deemed suitable for measuring patient participation based on patient preferences in the IC context and was feasible for both healthcare professionals and patients to complete in an interview when arriving at and leaving services. This may support person‐centred communication and collaboration, calling for further research on what facilitates patient participation and the implementation of person‐centred services for patients in IC. Patient or Public Contribution: First, the current paper is part of the IPIC study (i.e., the implementation of patient participation in IC). Influenced by a James Lind Alliance process, the study addresses research uncertainties identified by patients, next of kin, staff and researchers in the cocreation process. Second, cognitive interviewing was conducted with 15 representatives of the target population: seven patients receiving IC services, one home‐dwelling previous IC patient (altogether four women and four men, most of them 80 years or older) and seven healthcare staff working in IC services. The interviews determined the relevance, comprehensiveness and clarity of the 4Ps. Finally, 60 patients admitted to IC took part in the cross‐sectional study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People should have access to healthcare services that are effective, safe and secure, patient‐centred, and coordinated and continuous. One group that has consistently reported negative experiences and feels dissatisfied with services are patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The objective of this study was to develop a deeper understanding of the experiences of dissatisfaction among ME/CFS patients and explore the reasons for such dissatisfaction. Methods: We conducted in‐depth interviews with 48 people from 24 households (comprising patients and family members), providing insight into the experiences of 37 ME/CFS sufferers in Norway. The participants were purposively sampled and included persons of different ages, genders, time since having the condition (3–30 years), and severity. Results: Four main themes were developed: (1) 'Nonexistent services' cover patients' experience that healthcare services had nothing to offer them after receiving their ME/CFS‐diagnosis. (2) 'Nonpersonalised services' documents experiences where patients did receive services, which in theory was appropriate for relieving a specific health problem, but in practice were experienced as inappropriate because they were not adapted to the patient's need. (3) 'Slow services' address patients' experience of getting services too late (or too little) to be useful. (4) 'Wrong services' comprise patients' experiences of being offered and/or 'forced' to accept services that they felt were inappropriate for their health problems. Conclusions: Providers' lacking knowledge of the condition and lack of precise recommendations for follow up may partly explain unsatisfactory experiences. Providers' belief (or disbelief) in the condition could furthermore influence caregiving. Also, systemic issues in the healthcare sector, like high workloads and bureaucracy, can negatively affect care provision. Finally, users' unsatisfactory experiences may also be due to a lack of patient involvement in the design of such services. Further research should investigate how patients can be involved in service design, and also providers' perspectives on caregiving and the barriers they experience for providing high‐quality care. Patient or Public Contribution: The ME‐patient organisation suggested research topics to the call from which this study got funding. Patients and caregivers provided feedback during analysis and interpretation of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]