Search

Objectives: Physiotherapy is, like all healthcare professions, relational and valueladen. Patient‐centred care, evidence‐based practice and value‐based practices are concepts in which patient values lie at the heart of high‐quality healthcare practices. Nevertheless, physiotherapists have limited awareness of what patient values are in the physiotherapy encounter. The purpose of this study is to explore these patient values. Methods: A qualitative study design using content analysis was used involving 17 adult participants with chronic or recurrent musculoskeletal pain. Data were collected during July 2015–July 2016 in three primary care physiotherapy facilities in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Two researchers analysed the interviews and derived relevant codes from the data. After an iterative process of comparing, analysing, conceptualizing, and discussing the data, a pre existing analytic framework was refined in which distinct values were delineated. Results: Emerging patient values were encompassed in three themes, each consisting of two to four elements: (1) values about oneself (uniqueness and autonomy), (2) values regarding actions of the professional (technically skilled professional, conscientious professional, compassionate professional, responsive professional) and (3) values regarding interactions between patients and the professionals (partnership and empowerment). Conclusion: This study emphasizes the need for discussing patient values in the clinical encounter and helps physiotherapists to understand what deems to be important for patients with musculoskeletal pain in physiotherapy practice. The results of this study contribute to the existing body of knowledge of this important aspect of the quality of physiotherapy practice and may inspire clinicians and educators to actively implement patient values in clinical practice and the physiotherapy education.

Purpose: In the era of value-based healthcare, one strives for the most optimal outcomes and experiences from the perspective of the patient. So, patient experiences have become a key quality indicator for healthcare. While these are supposed to drive quality improvement (QI), their use and effectiveness for this purpose has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to provide insight into QI interventions used in a hospital setting and their effects on improving patient experiences, and possible barriers and promoters for QI work. Methods: Prisma guidelines were used to design this review. International academic literature was searched in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed Publisher, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. In total, 3,289 studies were retrieved and independently screened by the first two authors for eligibility and methodological quality. Data was extracted on the study purpose, setting, design, targeted patient experience domains, QI strategies, results of QI, barriers, and promotors for QI. Results: Twenty-one pre–post intervention studies were included for review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Tool. QI strategies used were staff education, patient education, audit and feedback, clinician reminders, organizational change, and policy change. Twenty studies reported improvement in patient experience, 14 studies of the 21 included studies reported statistical significance. Most studies (n=17) reported data-related barriers (eg, questionnaire quality), professional, and/or organizational barriers (eg, skepticism among staff), and 14 studies mentioned specific promoters (eg, engaging staff and patients) for QI. Conclusions: Several patient experience domains are targeted for QI using diverse strategies and methodological approaches. Most studies reported at least one improvement and also barriers and promoters that may influence

Objective In order to deliver good healthcare quality, it should explicitly be taken into account what patients value in healthcare. This study reviews qualitative studies in which patients express what they value. Based on this body of literature a preliminary taxonomy is designed. Methods A systematic review of qualitative papers on what patients’ value. Results 22 studies out of a total of 3259 met the inclusion criteria. After critical appraisal, data extraction was carried out by two researchers independently and revealed values related to 1) the individual patient; 2) the expected behavior of professionals and 3) the interaction between patients and professionals. Seven key elements were recognized on the bases of content analysis; 1) uniqueness, 2) autonomy, 3) compassion, 4) professionalism, 5) responsiveness, 6) partnership and 7) empowerment. Conclusion This study gives a rich insight into what patients value in various contexts and provides a promising taxonomy in line with patient centered based theories. The taxonomy needs further empirical research for a deeper insight and clarifaction in its elements. Practice implications This review and preliminary taxonomy contribute to the conceptualization of patient values as a bases for guidelines, policy and daily practice. **Postprint archived**