Search

Introduction: In 24/7 disability care facilities, patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs) are important to help healthcare professionals understand what matters to care users and to improve the quality of care. However, the successful implementation of a PREM is complex. In a Dutch disability care organization, stakeholders cocreated tailored implementation strategies aimed at improving the use and integration of a qualitative PREM. This study gives insights into the uptake and experiences with these cocreated implementation strategies and the perceived impact of the set of strategies. Methods: We performed a prospective process evaluation between February 2020 and February 2021. We collected data in three disability care facilities from 35 care users, 11 professionals, 3 facility managers and 4 organization representatives. Data collection included observations during kick‐offs and learning goal meetings and several attendance checklists. We collected 133 questionnaires (Time 0 and Time 1). We conducted 35 individual semistructured interviews and an online focus group interview. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using directed content analysis. Results: The exposure to and adoption of strategies was between 76% and 100%. Participants were positive about tailoring the strategies to each facility. Implementation was hindered by challenges in care users' communication and COVID‐19. The perceived impact referred to an improved understanding of the goal and added value of the PREM and better preparation and execution of the PREM. The impact of the set of strategies was mainly experienced on the micro level. Conclusion: The uptake of the cocreated implementation strategies was acceptable. The participants valued the tailored approach, which enabled them to focus on facility‐specific learning goals. Stakeholder engagement and co‐created strategies may have strengthened the adoption of and experiences with the implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: In this article, we present the process evaluation of implementation strategies for the integrated use of a PREM in disability care. A development group consisting of communication vulnerable care users, trainers and professionals developed the implementation strategies. The disability care organization was responsible for the planning and organization of the implementation process. During the process evaluation the end users, trainers, professionals and managers tailored the implementation strategies to their own settings and needs. Researchers observed this implementation process and interviewed the stakeholders about their experiences and the perceived impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: To meet the challenge of multimorbidity in decision making, a switch from a disease‐oriented to a goal‐oriented approach could be beneficial for patients and clinicians. More insight about the concept and the implementation of this approach in clinical practice is needed. Objective: This study aimed to develop conceptual descriptions of goal‐oriented care by examining the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and clinical geriatricians (CGs), and how the concept relates to collaborative communication and shared decision making with elderly patients with multimorbidity. Method: Qualitative interviews with GPs and CGs were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Clinicians distinguished disease‐ or symptom‐specific goals, functional goals and a new type of goals, which we labelled as fundamental goals. “Fundamental goals” are goals specifying patient's priorities in life, related to their values and core relationships. These fundamental goals can be considered implicitly or explicitly in decision making or can be ignored. Reasons to explicate goals are the potential mismatch between medical standards and patient preferences and the need to know individual patient values in case of multimorbidity, including the management in acute situations. Conclusion: Based on the perspectives of clinicians, we expanded the concept of goal‐oriented care by identifying a three‐level goal hierarchy. This model could facilitate collaborative goal‐setting for patients with multiple long‐term conditions in clinical practice. Future research is needed to refine and validate this model and to provide specific guidance for medical training and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective About 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieve all their treatment targets. Shared decision making ( SDM) using a support aid based on the 5-years results of the ADDITION study on multifactorial treatment, could increase this proportion. Research design and methods Cluster-randomized trial in 35 former ADDITION primary care practices. Practices were randomized to SDM or care as usual (1:1). Both ADDITION and non- ADDITION type 2 diabetes patients, 60-80 years, known with diabetes for 8-12 years, were included. In the intervention group, patients were presented evidence about the relationship between treatment intensity and cardiovascular events. They chose intensive or less intensive treatment and prioritized their targets. After 1 year priorities could be rearranged. Follow-up: 24 months. Intention-to-treat analysis. Main outcome measure: proportion of patients that achieved all three treatment targets. Results At baseline 26.4% in the SDM group (n=72) had already achieved all three treatment goals ( CG: 23.5%, n=81). In the SDM group 44 patients chose intensive treatment, 25 continued their former less intensive treatment and three people switched from the more to the less intensive protocol. After 24 months 31.8% of the patients in the SDM group achieved all three treatment targets ( CG: 25.3%), RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.81-1.95). Mean systolic blood pressure decreased in the SDM group (−5.4 mm Hg, P<.01), mean HbA1c and total cholesterol did not change. Conclusions Despite an already high baseline level of diabetes care, we found strong indications that SDM on both intensity of treatment and prioritizing treatment goals further improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. Objective: To describe the development of a two‐step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. Methods: The method consisted of (i) an open‐ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. Results: One hundred and thirty‐seven community‐dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well‐being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. Conclusions: This two‐step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]