Patients' and kin's perspective on healthcare quality compared to Lachman's multidimensional quality model: Focus group interviews

A scoping review examining patient experience and what matters to people experiencing homelessness when seeking healthcare

BACKGROUND

Homelessness is associated with significant health disparities. Conventional health services often fail to address the unique needs and lived experience of homeless individuals and fail to include participatory design when planning health services. This scoping review aimed to examine areas of patient experience that are most frequently reported by people experiencing homelessness when seeking and receiving healthcare, and to identify existing surveys used to measure patient experience for this cohort.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken reported according to the PRISMA-ScR 2020 Statement. Databases were searched on 1 December 2022: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL. Included studies focused on people experiencing homelessness, healthcare services and patient experience, primary research, published in English from 2010. Qualitative papers and findings were extracted and synthesized against a modified framework based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for care for people experiencing homelessness, the Institute of Medicine Framework and Lachman's multidimensional quality model. People with lived experience of homelessness were employed as part of the research team.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included. Of these, 22 were qualitative, seven quantitative and three mixed methods, from the United States of America (n = 17), United Kingdom (n = 5), Australia (n = 5) and Canada (n = 4). Health services ranged from primary healthcare to outpatient management, acute care, emergency care and hospital based healthcare. In qualitative papers, the domains of 'accessible and timely', 'person-centred', and values of 'dignity and respect' and 'kindness with compassion' were most prevalent. Among the three patient experience surveys identified, 'accessible and timely' and 'person-centred' were the most frequent domains. The least frequently highlighted domains and values were 'equitable' and 'holistic'. No questions addressed the 'safety' domain.

CONCLUSIONS

The Primary Care Quality-Homeless questionnaire best reflected the priorities for healthcare provision that were highlighted in the qualitative studies of people experiencing homelessness. The most frequently cited domains and values that people experiencing homelessness expressed as important when seeking healthcare were reflected in each of the three survey tools to varying degrees. Findings suggest that the principles of 'Kindness and compassion' require further emphasis when seeking feedback on healthcare experiences and the domains of 'safety', 'equitable', and 'efficiency' are not adequately represented in existing patient experience surveys.

The FlaQuM-Quickscan: A starting point to include primary care professionals' perspectives in the evaluation of hospital quality priorities

INTRODUCTION

Today, primary care professionals' (PCPs) perspectives on hospital quality are unknown when evaluating hospital quality priorities. The aims of the present study were to identify key healthcare quality attributes from PCPs' perspective, to validate an instrument that measures PCPs' experiences of healthcare quality multidimensionally and to define hospital quality priorities based on PCPs' experiences.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Focus groups with PCPs were conducted to identify quality attributes through a qualitative in-depth analysis. A multicentre study of 18 hospitals was used to quantitatively assess construct, discriminant and criterion validity of the FlaQuM-Quickscan, an instrument that measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). To set quality priorities, scores on quality domains were analyzed descriptively and between-hospital variation was examined by evaluating differences in hospitals' mean scores on the quality domains using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Identified key attributes largely corresponded with Lachman's multidimensional quality model. Including 'Communication' as a new quality domain was recommended. The FlaQuM-Quickscan was completed by 550 PCPs. Confirmatory factor analyses showed reasonable to good fit, except for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) in part 2. The 'Equity' domain scored the highest in parts 1 and 2. Domains 'Kin-centred care' and 'Accessibility and timeliness' scored the lowest in part 1 and 'Resilience' and 'Partnership and co-production' in part 2. Significant variation in hospitals' mean scores was observed for eleven domains in part 1 and sixteen domains in part 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The results gained a better understanding of PCPs' perspective on quality. The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure PCPs' experiences of hospital quality. Identified priorities indicate that hospital management should focus on multifaceted quality strategies, including technical domains, person-and kin-centredness, core values and catalysts.

Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan

BACKGROUND

Measuring quality is essential to drive improvement initiatives in hospitals. An instrument that measures healthcare quality multidimensionally and integrates patients', kin's and professionals' perspectives is lacking. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure healthcare quality multidimensionally from a multistakeholder perspective.

METHODS

A multi-method approach started by establishing content and face validity, followed by a multi-centre study in 17 Flemish (Belgian) hospitals to assess construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, criterion validity through determining Pearson's correlations and reliability through Cronbach's alpha measurement. The instrument FlaQuM-Quickscan measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). This bipartite instrument mirrors 15 quality items and 3 general items (the overall quality score, recommendation score and intention-to-stay score). A process evaluation was organised to identify effective strategies in instrument distribution by conducting semi-structured interviews with quality managers.

RESULTS

By involving experts in the development of quality items and through pilot testing by a multi-stakeholder group, the content and face validity of instrument items was ensured. In total, 13,615 respondents (5,891 Patients/kin and 7,724 Professionals) completed the FlaQuM-Quickscan. Confirmatory factor analyses showed good to very good fit and correlations supported the associations between the quality items and general items for both instrument parts. Cronbach's alphas supported the internal consistency. The process evaluation revealed that supportive technical structures and approaching respondents individually were effective strategies to distribute the instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure healthcare quality experiences multidimensionally from an integrated multistakeholder perspective. This new instrument offers unique and detailed data to design sustainable quality management systems in hospitals. Based on these data, hospital management and policymakers can set quality priorities for patients', kin's and professionals' care. Future research should investigate the transferability to other healthcare systems and examine between-stakeholders and between-hospitals variation.

Identifying consensus on activities that underpin value-based healthcare in outpatient specialty consultations, among clinicians

OBJECTIVE

To find a consensus on clinicians' and patients' activities that underpin an ideal value-based outpatient specialty consultation, among clinicians.

METHODS

A three-round online Delphi study was conducted. A purposive sample of nineteen clinicians from a Dutch university hospital judged activities on importance. Consensus was defined at 80% agreement. Activities were thematically analyzed to derive conceptual themes.

RESULTS

The expert panel agreed on 63 activities as being important for an ideal value-based outpatient specialty consultation and two activities as being unimportant. They failed to reach a consensus on 11 activities. Conceptual themes for activities that were considered important regard: 1) empowerment, 2) patient-reported biopsychosocial outcomes, 3) the patient as a person, 4) the patient's kin, 5) shared power and responsibility, 6) optimization, 7) coordination, 8) therapeutic relationships, and 9) resource-consciousness.

CONCLUSION

A value-based outpatient specialty consultation requires contextual decision-making, is person-centered, and focusses attention on care optimization and intelligent resource allocation. No importance is attributed to healthcare's societal burden and climate footprint. Disparities existed in various areas including the role of patient reported experience measures, "patient-like-me" data, and healthcare costs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study contributes a toolbox to guide and evaluate clinicians' and patients' behaviors in value-based outpatient specialty consultations and reveals opportunities to enhance facilitation.