Shelli L Feder1, Eliza Kiwak2, Darcé Costello2, Lilian Dindo3, Kizzy Hernandez-Bigos4, Lauren Vo4, Mary Geda2, Caroline Blaum5, Mary E Tinetti2,6, Aanand D Naik3. 1. National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Houston Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 4. Connecticut Center for Primary Care, Hartford, Connecticut. 5. School of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York. 6. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis. SETTING: In-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. MEASUREMENTS: Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement. RESULTS: Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.
OBJECTIVES:Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis. SETTING: In-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. MEASUREMENTS: Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement. RESULTS:Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits. CONCLUSIONS:Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Jennifer L Wolff; Erin Giovannetti; Lisa Reider; Carlos Weiss; Qian-li Xue; Bruce Leff; Chad Boult; Travonia Hughes; Cynthia Rand Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amy S Kelley; Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Gabrielle R Goldberg; Betty B Lim; Evgenia Litrivis; Cardinale B Smith; Lynn B O'Neill Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terri R Fried; Heather G Allore; Joanna C Salmon; Joanne M Foody; Luann Bianco; Sandra Ginter; Liana Fraenkel Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: David T Eton; Djenane Ramalho de Oliveira; Jason S Egginton; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Laura Odell; Carl R May; Victor M Montori Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2012-08-24
Authors: Anne K Schwabenbauer; Cynthia M Knight; Nicole Downing; Michelle Morreale-Karl; Michelle E Mlinac Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 1.569
Authors: Rafael Samper-Ternent; Mary Tinetti; Lee A Jennings; Rebeca Wong; Jennifer Arney; Aanand D Naik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Mary F Wyman; Daniel Liebzeit; Corrine I Voils; Barbara J Bowers; Elizabeth N Chapman; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Korey A Kennelty; Amy J H Kind; Julia Loosen; Nicole Rogus-Pulia; Melissa Dattalo Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-02-15
Authors: Ruth E Pel-Littel; Marjolein Snaterse; Nelly Marela Teppich; Bianca M Buurman; Faridi S van Etten-Jamaludin; Julia C M van Weert; Mirella M Minkman; Wilma J M Scholte Op Reimer Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Javad Razjouyan; Jennifer Freytag; Lilian Dindo; Lea Kiefer; Edward Odom; Jaime Halaszynski; Jennifer W Silva; Aanand D Naik Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2021-02-19
Authors: Dagje Boeykens; Pauline Boeckxstaens; An De Sutter; Lies Lahousse; Peter Pype; Patricia De Vriendt; Dominique Van de Velde Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer Moye; Jane A Driver; Montgomery T Owsiany; Li Qing Chen; Jessica Cruz Whitley; Elizabeth J Auguste; Julie M Paik Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2022-04-20