Search

Background: A person‐centred approach in the context of health services delivery implies a biopsychosocial model focusing on all factors that influence the person's health and functioning. Those wishing to monitor change should consider this perspective when they develop and use guidelines to stimulate active consideration of the person's needs, preferences and participation in goal setting, intervention selection and the use of appropriate outcome measures. Objective: To develop a position paper that promotes a person‐centred approach in guideline development and implementation. Design, setting and participants: We used three narrative discussion formats to collect data for achieving consensus: a nominal group technique for the Allied Health Steering Group, an Internet discussion board and a workshop at the annual G‐I‐N conference. We analysed the data for relevant themes to draft recommendations. Results: We built the position paper on the values of the biopsychosocial model. Four key themes for enhancing a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines emerged: (i) use a joint definition of health‐related quality of life as an essential component of intervention goals, (ii) incorporate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for considering all domains related to health, (iii) adopt a shared decision‐making method, and (iv) incorporate patient‐reported health outcome measures. The position statement includes 14 recommendations for guideline developers, implementers and users. Conclusion: This position paper describes essential elements for incorporating a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines. The consensus process provided information about barriers and facilitators that might help us develop strategies for implementing person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare professionals have an important role in advocating for the adoption of a brain‐healthy lifestyle for optimal multiple sclerosis (MS) care. Nonetheless, studies to date have mainly focussed on the consumer perspective. Herein, we aimed to explore the current practices of how healthcare professionals support protective, lifestyle‐related behaviour changes to optimise brain health among people living with MS (plwMS), and their perspectives of professional roles. Methods: Australian healthcare professionals were recruited via study advertisements, purposive and snowball sampling, to participate in an online, semi‐structured and audio‐recorded interview. Clinicians were eligible if they had a minimum of a tertiary Bachelor's degree and 12‐months experience working with plwMS, access to the Internet and sufficient time to participant. An inductive, data‐driven form of reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken before thematic categorisation of the quotes from transcripts. Data analysis was guided by the methods of Braun and Clark and the study's underpinnings drew on the constructs of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Results: Six physicians, 10 MS nurses, 18 allied health professionals, one exercise therapist and one alternative therapist were interviewed. Three primary themes encompassing the perceived role of healthcare professionals in supporting a brain‐healthy lifestyle were identified: (1) the empowering role, (2) collaborative role and (3) communicative role. External factors/forces including time constraints, professional expertise, training and skill set, power dynamics, consumer readiness, health literacy, self‐efficacy and motivation are at play, and affect how/when healthcare professionals may support behaviour change to optimise lifelong brain health for plwMS. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals recognise their critical role in encouraging and supporting the adoption of a brain‐healthy lifestyle to optimise lifelong brain health for plwMS. However, discord is evident when they underestimate the complexity of translating knowledge of lifestyle‐related behaviour change(s) into action. Greater awareness must be made in recognising and addressing the bidirectionality of external factors such as those in the SCT, that may influence how behaviour change occurs. Public Contribution: Healthcare professionals volunteered to be interviewed as part of the data collection phase of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The transition from hospital to home is often suboptimal, resulting in patients not receiving the necessary allied healthcare after discharge. This may, in turn, lead to delayed recovery, a higher number of readmissions, more emergency department visits and an increase in mortality and healthcare costs. This study aimed to gain insight into patients' experiences, perceptions, and needs regarding hospital‐to‐home transition, focusing on allied healthcare as a first step towards the development of a transitional integrated allied healthcare pathway for patients with complex care needs after hospital discharge. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with patients. Participants were recruited from universities and general hospitals in the Amsterdam region between May and July 2023. They were eligible if they (1) were discharged from the hospital minimally 3 and maximally 12 months after admission to an oncologic surgery department, internal medicine department, intensive care unit, or trauma centre, (2) received hospital‐based care from at least one allied healthcare provider, who visited the patient at least twice during hospital admission, (3) spoke Dutch or English and (4) were 18 years or older. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed a thematic analysis of the interview data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis. 'Allied healthcare support during transition' depicts patients' positive experiences when they felt supported by allied health professionals during the hospital‐to‐home transition. 'Patient and family involvement' illustrates how much patients value the involvement of their family members during discharge planning. 'Information recall and processing' portrays the challenges of understanding and remembering overwhelming amounts of information, sometimes unclear and provided at the wrong moment. Overall, patients' experiences of transitional care were positive when they were involved in the discharge process. Negative experiences occurred when their preferences for postdischarge communication were ignored. Conclusions: This study suggests that allied health professionals need to continuously collaborate and communicate with each other to provide patients and their families with the personalized support they need. To provide high‐quality and person‐centred care, it is essential to consider how, when, and what information to provide to patients and their families to allow them to contribute to their recovery actively. Patient or Public Contribution: The interview guide for this manuscript was developed with the assistance of patients, who reviewed it and provided us with feedback. Furthermore, patients provided us with their valuable lived experiences by participating in the interviews conducted for this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. Objective Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. Methods A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: 'Why,' 'On what aspects' and 'How' do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? Results All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. Conclusions This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]