Search

Introduction: With governments worldwide reducing their involvement in the provision of institutional long‐term elder care, community‐based family caregivers (FCs) have become a key element in policies aimed at improving the quality of healthcare systems and maintaining their financial sustainability. This paper uses data from focus groups with FCs providing care to older adults to describe their approaches to and priorities for achieving care quality and sustainability as they work with formal health and social care systems. It describes FCs' views on information and communications technology (ICT) as potential supports for achieving these care quality and sustainability goals. Methods: We held 10 focus groups from May 2017 to August 2018 and recruited 25 FCs through a mix of convenience and snowball sampling strategies. We employed an inductive approach and used qualitative thematic content analysis methods to examine and interpret the resulting data. We used NVIVO 12 software for data analysis. Results: Quality of care – as delivered by both FCs themselves, and formal health and social care systems – was a major preoccupation for our participants. They saw communications quality as a key aspect of the broader concept of care quality. Our data analysis produced a typology of communications quality from the FC perspective. Analysis of our data also revealed ICT development opportunities and available products in key areas. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the formal care system providers could be more caregiver‐oriented in their communications by engaging FCs in the decision‐making process and allowing them to express their own concerns and goals. The implication of our findings for those seeking to develop policies and ICT products in support of FCs is that these should focus on human relationships and seek to expand facilitative communications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]