Anna R Gagliardi1, Juan Pablo Diaz Martinez2, G Ross Baker3, Lesley Moody4, Kerseri Scane5, Robin Urquhart6, Walter P Wodchis3. 1. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, 13EN-228, Toronto, M5G2C4, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca. 2. Biostatistics Research Unit, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. 5. Patient Partnerships, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. 6. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical quality measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of general and specialty hospitals based on the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Patient Engagement framework. We derived a PE capacity index measure, and with Multiple Correspondence Analysis, assessed the association of PE capacity with hospital type, and rates of hand-washing, C. difficile infection rates and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Respondents (91, 66.4%) included general: < 100 beds (48.4%), 100+ beds (27.5%), teaching hospitals (11.0%) and specialty (13.2%) hospitals. Most featured PE in multiple clinical and corporate departments. Most employed PE in a range of Planning (design/improve facilities 94.5%, develop strategic plans 87.9%), Evaluation/Quality Improvement (accreditation 91.2%, develop QI plans 90.1%) and Service Delivery activities (develop information/communication aids 92.3%). Hospitals enabled PE with multiple supports (median 12, range 0 to 25), most often: 76.9% strategic plan recognizes PE, 74.7% patient/family advisory council, and 69.2% pool of patient volunteers; and least often: 30.0% PE staff, 26.4% PE funding and 16.5% patient reimbursement or 3.3% compensation. Hospitals employed a range of less (inform, consult) and more (involve, partner) active modes of engagement. Two variables accounted for 29.6% of variance in hospital PE capacity index measure data: number of departments featuring PE and greater use of active engagement modes. PE capacity was not associated with general hospital type or clinical quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with fewer resources can establish favourable PE conditions by deploying PE widely and actively engaging patients. Healthcare policy-makers, hospital executives and PE managers can use these findings to allocate PE resources. Future research should explore how PE modes and methods impact clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical quality measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of general and specialty hospitals based on the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Patient Engagement framework. We derived a PE capacity index measure, and with Multiple Correspondence Analysis, assessed the association of PE capacity with hospital type, and rates of hand-washing, C. difficileinfection rates and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Respondents (91, 66.4%) included general: < 100 beds (48.4%), 100+ beds (27.5%), teaching hospitals (11.0%) and specialty (13.2%) hospitals. Most featured PE in multiple clinical and corporate departments. Most employed PE in a range of Planning (design/improve facilities 94.5%, develop strategic plans 87.9%), Evaluation/Quality Improvement (accreditation 91.2%, develop QI plans 90.1%) and Service Delivery activities (develop information/communication aids 92.3%). Hospitals enabled PE with multiple supports (median 12, range 0 to 25), most often: 76.9% strategic plan recognizes PE, 74.7% patient/family advisory council, and 69.2% pool of patient volunteers; and least often: 30.0% PE staff, 26.4% PE funding and 16.5% patient reimbursement or 3.3% compensation. Hospitals employed a range of less (inform, consult) and more (involve, partner) active modes of engagement. Two variables accounted for 29.6% of variance in hospital PE capacity index measure data: number of departments featuring PE and greater use of active engagement modes. PE capacity was not associated with general hospital type or clinical quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with fewer resources can establish favourable PE conditions by deploying PE widely and actively engaging patients. Healthcare policy-makers, hospital executives and PE managers can use these findings to allocate PE resources. Future research should explore how PE modes and methods impact clinical outcomes.
Authors: Jeph Herrin; Kathleen G Harris; Kevin Kenward; Stephen Hines; Maulik S Joshi; Dominick L Frosch Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Natalie N Anderson; G Ross Baker; Lesley Moody; Kerseri Scane; Robin Urquhart; Walter P Wodchis; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Natalie N Anderson; Kelly Dong; G Ross Baker; Lesley Moody; Kerseri Scane; Robin Urquhart; Walter P Wodchis; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Natalie N Anderson; G Ross Baker; Lesley Moody; Kerseri Scane; Robin Urquhart; Walter P Wodchis; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.006