Measuring Patient Experiences: Is It Meaningful and Actionable?

Consensus-Based Development of an Assessment Tool: A Methodology for Patient Engagement in Primary Care and CPD Research

With cardiovascular disease (CVD) posing a significant disease burden in Canada and more broadly, preventative efforts which incorporate best evidence, patient preference, and physician expertise must continue to take place. Primary care providers play a pivotal role in this effort, and a greater understanding of patient perspectives is needed to guide management and inform training. We used a validated consensus method, the nominal group technique (NGT), to identify patient-reported experience measures (PREM) related to CVD prevention deemed most important by both patients and providers. The NGT was used by using structured discussions between patients and providers to bring ideas about PREM CVD outcomes to a consensus. Four patient partners and four primary care providers were selected to participate in an NGT session. Each participant wrote down items/questions they believed important in CVD preventative care. After discussions, all items underwent anonymous ranking on a 5-point scale. Items were included/excluded based on 75% agreement a priori. The panel produced 10 items from a total of 26 after 2 rounds of ranking. The top two items were as follows: "Is your treatment plan tailored to you" and "Was your physician good at giving information about your risk factors?" These results are significantly different compared with existing quality measures because they highlight aspects of patient experience and therapeutic relationship. A questionnaire consisting of prioritized PREM items is valuable in quality improvement and continuous professional development (CPD).

Barriers and reliability of patient experience evaluation in Ontario: perspectives of healthcare providers, managers, and policymakers

Purpose

Patient experience (PE) evaluation can identify critical issues in healthcare quality. Various methods are used for PE evaluation in the healthcare system in Ontario; however, evidence suggests that PE evaluation is not systematically performed and has not received substantial buy-in from healthcare providers. This study explores the perspectives of healthcare providers, managers and policymakers in Ontario on PE evaluation methods, barriers, utility and reliability.

Design/methodology/approach

The study used a qualitative descriptive design. Twenty-one semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers, managers and policymakers in Ontario between April 2018 and May 2019. The authors used thematic analysis to analyze the data. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research quality criteria were used.

Findings

Barriers to PE evaluation include evaluation cost and the time and effort required to collect and analyze the data. Several factors affect the reliability of the evaluation, resulting in an unrealistically high level of patient satisfaction. These include the inclusivity of evaluation, the subjective nature of patient feedback, patients' concerns about health service continuity and the anonymity of evaluation. Participants were skeptical about the meaningfulness of evaluation because it may only yield general information that cannot be acted upon by healthcare providers, managers and policymakers for quality improvement.

Originality/value

This paper reveals that many healthcare providers, managers and policymakers do not see a tangible value in PE evaluation, regardless of Ontario's patient-centeredness and “patient first” rhetoric. An improvement in evaluation methods and a cultural change in the healthcare system regarding the value of PE are required to foster a better appreciation of the benefits of PE evaluation.

Confronting Barriers to Improving Healthcare Performance in Canada

Is substantive transformation of healthcare delivery in canada a fool's paradise? Since this idiom refers to a state of happiness unconnected to underlying truths, it may be an apt descriptor given the many problems with the provinces' and territories' delivery of healthcare. Some of these problems cause harm, such as hospital-acquired infections, while others are simply wasteful, such as unnecessary tests or imaging. Moreover, meaningful transformation of healthcare delivery has been elusive and divisive in provinces and territories for decades (Martin et al. 2018; McIntosh et al. 2010; Ontario Ministry of Finance 2012).

Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces

Objective

While public reporting of hospital‐based performance measurement is commonplace, it has lagged in the primary care sector, especially in Canada. Despite the increasing recognition of patients as active partners in the health‐care system, little is known about what information about primary care performance is relevant to the Canadian public. We explored patient perspectives and priorities for the public reporting of primary care performance measures.

Methods

We conducted six deliberative dialogue sessions across three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia). Participants were asked to rank and discuss the importance of collecting and reporting on specific dimensions and indicators of primary care performance. We conducted a thematic analysis of the data.

Results

Fifty‐six patients participated in the dialogue sessions. Measures of access to primary care providers, communication with providers and continuity of information across all providers involved in a patient's care were identified as the highest priority indicators of primary care performance from a patient perspective. Several common measures of quality of care, such as rates of cancer screening, were viewed as too patient dependent to be used to evaluate the health system or primary care provider's performance.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that public reporting aimed at patient audiences should focus on a nuanced measure of access, incorporation of context reported alongside measurement that is for public audiences, clear reporting on provider communication and a measure of information continuity. Participants highlighted the importance the public places on their providers staying up to date with advances in care.

Regional variation in primary care improvement strategies and policy: case studies that consider qualitative contextual data for performance measurement in three Canadian provinces

OBJECTIVE

To explore regional primary care improvement strategies that are potentially determinants of primary care performance.

DESIGN

Multiple comparative embedded case study.

SETTING

Three regions in Canada: Fraser East, British Columbia; Eastern Ontario Health Unit, Ontario; Central Zone, Nova Scotia.

DATA SOURCES

(1) In-depth interviews with purposively selected key informants (eg, primary care decision-makers, physician leads, regulatory agencies) and focus groups with patients and clinicians (n=68 participants) and (2) published and grey literature (n=205 documents).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Variations in spread and uptake of primary care improvement strategies across the three study regions. NVivo (V.11) was used to manage data and perform content analysis to identify categories within and across cases. The coding structure was developed by researchers through iterative collaboration, using inductive and deductive processes.

RESULTS

Six overarching primary care improvement strategies, differing in focus and spread, were implemented across the three study regions: interprofessional team-based approaches, provider skill mix expansion, physician groups and networks, information systems, remuneration and performance measurement and reporting infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

The addition of information on regional improvement strategies to primary care performance reports could add important contextual insights into primary care performance results. This could help identify possible drivers of reported performance outcomes and levers for change in practice, regional and system-level settings.

Balancing patient priorities for technical and interactional aspects of care in a measure of primary care quality

AIM

This study attempts to strike a balance to measure primary care quality in a way that considers what is important to patients, providers and the healthcare system, all at the same time.

BACKGROUND

The interest in delivering patient-centered primary care implies a need for patient-centered performance measurement. However, the distinction between measures of patient experience and technical aspects of care raises an unanswerable question: if a provider has good performance on technical measures but not on patient experience measures (or vice versa), what can be said about the quality of care?

METHODS

We surveyed patients to determine the relative priorities of each of a series of primary care measures in the patients' relationship with their primary care provider. The on-line survey was co-designed with patient co-investigators. The items consisted of 14 primary care quality measures used in pre-existing performance report, 41 additional indicators including a novel set of patient-generated Key Performance Indicators and 17 questions about patients' demographics, health and socioeconomic status as well as open-ended questions.

FINDINGS

Despite challenges, the study suggests that this is feasible. We argue that it is necessary to get better at measuring and finding ever-better ways to put patients at the center of primary care.