| Literature DB >> 27480312 |
Elizabeth A Fradgley1,2, Christine L Paul3,2, Jamie Bryant3,2, Nicolas Collins4, Stephen P Ackland2,5, Douglas Bellamy6, Christopher R Levi7.
Abstract
Identification of patients' and health professionals' quality improvement preferences is an essential first step in collaborative improvement models. This includes experience-based codesign (EBCD), where service change is strategically introduced following stakeholder consultation. This study compared the number and types of improvement initiatives selected by outpatients and health professionals. Using electronic surveys designed to inform EBCD studies, 541 outpatients (71.1% consent) and 124 professionals (47.1% response) selected up to 23 general initiatives. On average, outpatients selected 2.4 (median = 1, interquartile range = 1-3) initiatives and professionals selected 10.7 (median = 10; interquartile range = 6-15) initiatives. Outpatients demonstrated a strong preference for improvements to clinic organization, such as appointment scheduling and clinic contact. Outpatients selected relatively fewer initiatives potentially reducing the complexity of service change and resources required to address preferences. Comparatively, professionals indicated a greater degree of change is needed and selected initiatives related to communication with patients and other professionals, including coordinating multidisciplinary care. Improvements to information provision were commonly selected by both groups and offered a strategic opportunity to address patients' and professionals' preferences. By quantifying the ways in which preferences differed, this study emphasizes the need for collaborative approaches to health service change and may be used to initiate an informed discussion on patients' and professionals' quality improvement preferences in tertiary care.Entities:
Keywords: ambulatory care; consumer participation; experience-based design; health-care surveys; patient-centered care; quality improvement
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27480312 DOI: 10.1177/0163278716659524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eval Health Prof ISSN: 0163-2787 Impact factor: 2.651