Search

Background: To facilitate change for person‐centred care, there is a need to invest in measures to assess if and how healthcare systems are delivering care based on the principles of person‐centred care. This paper describes the first phase in developing an item bank to measure patients' experiences of person‐centred care. Aim: The aim was to translate, culturally adapt and evaluate candidate items to measure person‐centred care from the patient's perspective. Methods: The Centre for person‐centred care at Gothenburg university and the UK Person‐centred and coordinated care model informed our conceptual framework. The initial pool of item candidates originated from a previous systematic review where 855 items were identified. In this study, a mixed method design was used involving persons with experience as patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers in person‐centred care or questionnaire design (n = 84). The item analysis included two validation rounds using web questionnaires, a focus group and cognitive interviews. Results: From the initial pool, 155 items covering core domains and subdomains of person‐centred and coordinated care were selected for translation and qualitative item analysis. After translation, 44 items were excluded (duplicates). After the first validation round, 21 items were rephrased and 35 were excluded (due to low ratings, lack of comprehensibility, were duplicates or too specifically phrased). To reflect the ethical basis of person‐centred care, rewordings were also made to encompass the patient as an active partner in care and where communication and information goes two‐ways and care is co‐created. After the second round, 11 items were rephrased and 25 items were excluded (for being redundant/repetitive). Six new items were added (covering access to care, patient capabilities, mental well‐being and identifying goals). Conclusion: We have developed a first set of 57 items to proceed towards developing an item bank to measure the patient experiences of person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: this study aims to explore how patient safety in community dementia services is understood by caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Methods: cross-sectional analysis of guided one-to-one interviews with 10 caregivers, and 10 healthcare professionals. Results: caregivers and healthcare professionals identified a range of issues including medication errors, mis-communication between professionals, unclear service pathways and the effects of stress on caregivers' behaviour. Caregivers and professionals differed in their attitudes to balancing safety with patient autonomy and who is responsible for managing safety. Conclusions: this article helps to define the nature of safety issues in the context of community care for people with dementia. In contrast to hospital medicine, where the ideal treatment world is safe with all risks managed or minimised, in dementia some risks are actively taken in the interests of promoting autonomy. Caregivers' views differ from those of health professionals but both parties see potential for collaborative working to manage risk in this context, balancing the promotion of autonomy with the minimisation of potential harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To examine clinicians' attitudes regarding the relative benefits and risks of conventional and atypical antipsychotic medication, and the perceived validity of the CUtLASS study. To examine the attitudes of participant clinicians' regarding the operation and administration, and the potential clinical impact of the findings. Method Two hundred and sixty-two clinicians were each sent an anonymous questionnaire, and invited to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each of to nine statements (from agree to disagree). Results Of the 112 clinicians who responded, 71% supported the CUtLASS study. Thirty-nine percent agreed with the statement that the clinical efficacy of atypicals was superior to conventional antipsychotics, while 27% disagreed and 34% were undecided. Thus, two-thirds of participating clinicians revealed no uncertainty on a key question being tested in the CUtLASS study. Further, the vast majority (97%) considered that atypicals were associated with less severe side effects. Conclusions In clinical studies, recruitment strategies relying on referrals from clinicians may find that some clinicians identify fewer patients than expected. This can lead to a relatively low yield of potential study subjects and possibly a selection bias. Surveys of clinicians approached to participate in clinical studies provide a potential mechanism to explore attitudes relevant to participant recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To ascertain whether person centred coordinated care (P3C) is being delivered in healthcare services, components relating to the construct need to be measured. Patient reported measures (PRMs) can be used to provide a measurement of patients' experiences of P3C. Traditionally, they have been used to assess whether interventions are delivering P3C. Recently there has been an increased interest in using them to directly enhance P3C in clinical practice by, for example, improving practitioner-patient communication. However, there is limited research available on how P3C can be implemented in practice. This study aimed to extend this literature base by exploring how professionals use PRMs to enhance P3C.Methods: Cross sectional thematic analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews with a variety of professionals who have experience of how PRMs can be used to make improvements to P3C. Inductive themes were mapped onto components of P3C care that fell under five established domains of P3C (Information and Communication; My Goals/Outcomes; Decision making; Care Planning and Transitions) to explore whether and how individual components of P3C were being improved through PRMs. Barriers and facilitators that affected the delivery and the results of the PRMs were also identified.Results: Three P3C domains (Information and Communication, My Goals/Outcomes and Care Planning) were mapped frequently onto themes generated by the participants' interviews about PRM use. However, the domain 'Decision Making' was only mapped onto one theme and 'Transitions' was not mapped at all. Participant reports suggested that PRM use by practitioners enhanced patients' ability to self-manage, communicate, engage and reflect during consultations. Barriers to PRM use were related to a lack of a whole service approach to implementation.Conclusions: Practitioners use both PROMs and PREMs in various ways to improve different aspects of patient care. By sharing experiences professionals can benefit from each other's learning and work together to extend the potential value that PRMs can offer to P3C delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]