Linda Zimmermann1, Annika Konrad2, Christian Müller3, Manfred Rundel4, Mirjam Körner5. 1. Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: linda.zimmermann@mps.uni-freiburg.de. 2. Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; University of Cooperative Education in Health Care and Welfare Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany. 4. Celenus-Kliniken GmbH, Offenburg, Germany. 5. Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: mirjam.koerner@mps.uni-freiburg.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Achieving patient-centeredness requires a paradigm shift in the provider-patient interaction. Participation, information, communication, and interaction are essential indicators in this area. The study examined the evaluation and implementation of indicators of patient-centeredness for chronically ill patients and center-specific differences in this regard. METHODS: This cross-sectional study with mixed-method design combined focus groups and a questionnaire survey at 5 rehabilitation centers. The analysis included a qualitative component with summarizing content analysis and a descriptive-exploratory quantitative component. RESULTS: Patients (N=32) rated the indicators of patient-centeredness favorably to very favorably (on a scale of 1=very good to 6=unsatisfactory). The centers exhibited significant differences in "patient participation" (p<.05). Dominant topics voiced in the focus groups were the desire for more individualized treatment (n=30) and more specific and rapid feedback on treatment goals (n=13). CONCLUSION: Considerable between-center differences exist, particularly in patients' opportunity to participate in treatment planning, which can be a starting point for improvements. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Rehabilitation centers should ask patients to evaluate indicators of patient-centeredness and develop targeted actions for improvement. The patient survey shows that patients would like improvements in patient-centeredness in the overall rehabilitation system, particularly regarding patient participation, and training in this area is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: Achieving patient-centeredness requires a paradigm shift in the provider-patient interaction. Participation, information, communication, and interaction are essential indicators in this area. The study examined the evaluation and implementation of indicators of patient-centeredness for chronically ill patients and center-specific differences in this regard. METHODS: This cross-sectional study with mixed-method design combined focus groups and a questionnaire survey at 5 rehabilitation centers. The analysis included a qualitative component with summarizing content analysis and a descriptive-exploratory quantitative component. RESULTS:Patients (N=32) rated the indicators of patient-centeredness favorably to very favorably (on a scale of 1=very good to 6=unsatisfactory). The centers exhibited significant differences in "patient participation" (p<.05). Dominant topics voiced in the focus groups were the desire for more individualized treatment (n=30) and more specific and rapid feedback on treatment goals (n=13). CONCLUSION: Considerable between-center differences exist, particularly in patients' opportunity to participate in treatment planning, which can be a starting point for improvements. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Rehabilitation centers should ask patients to evaluate indicators of patient-centeredness and develop targeted actions for improvement. The patient survey shows that patients would like improvements in patient-centeredness in the overall rehabilitation system, particularly regarding patient participation, and training in this area is recommended.
Authors: Rebecca Lewthwaite; Carolee J Winstein; Christianne J Lane; Sarah Blanton; Burl R Wagenheim; Monica A Nelsen; Alexander W Dromerick; Steven L Wolf Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: O Rodríguez Nogueira; J Botella-Rico; M C Martínez González; M Leal Clavel; J Morera-Balaguer; A R Moreno-Poyato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Óscar Rodríguez-Nogueira; Jaume Morera Balaguer; Abel Nogueira López; Juan Roldán Merino; José-Martín Botella-Rico; Sonia Del Río-Medina; Antonio R Moreno Poyato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Manuel Albornoz-Cabello; José Manuel Pérez-Mármol; Mª de Los Ángeles Cardero-Durán; Cristo Jesús Barrios-Quinta; Luis Espejo-Antúnez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.390