The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis

被引:0
作者
Visser, Mildred [1 ]
Hart, Naomi't [1 ]
de Mul, Marleen [1 ]
Weggelaar-Jansen, Anne Marie [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Erasmus Sch Hlth Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Eindhoven Univ Technol, Clin Informat, Eindhoven, Netherlands
[3] Tilburg Univ, Tilburg Sch Social & Behav Sci, Tranzo, Tilburg, Netherlands
关键词
care pathway; co-creation; co-design; discourse analysis; patient involvement; qualitative research; PARTICIPATION;
D O I
10.1111/hex.14101
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundThe WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development.ObjectiveTo explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development.MethodsIn a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities.ResultsWe identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement.ConclusionThese discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement.Patient or Public ContributionThis study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]   Nothing about us without us: A co-production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities [J].
Albert, Alexandra ;
Islam, Shahid ;
Haklay, Muki ;
McEachan, Rosemary R. C. .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2023, 26 (02) :836-846
[2]   How healthcare professionals experience patient participation in designing healthcare services and products. A qualitative study in the field of spinal cord injury in Switzerland [J].
Amann, Julia ;
Brach, Mirjam ;
Rubinelli, Sara .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2018, 101 (08) :1452-1459
[3]   Challenges in achieving patient participation: A review of how patient participation is addressed in empirical studies [J].
Angel, Sanne ;
Frederiksen, Kirsten Norup .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2015, 52 (09) :1525-1538
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2015, WHO global strategy on people-centered and Integrated health services: Interim report
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Continuity and coordination of care: A practice brief to support implementation of the WHO framework on integrated people-centered health services
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2023, WHO framework for meaningful engagement of people living with noncommunicable diseases, and mental health and neurological conditions
[7]   Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement [J].
Armstrong, Natalie ;
Herbert, Georgia ;
Aveling, Emma-Louise ;
Dixon-Woods, Mary ;
Martin, Graham .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2013, 16 (03) :E36-E47
[8]   Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review [J].
Bombard, Yvonne ;
Baker, G. Ross ;
Orlando, Elaina ;
Fancott, Carol ;
Bhatia, Pooja ;
Casalino, Selina ;
Onate, Kanecy ;
Denis, Jean-Louis ;
Pomey, Marie-Pascale .
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2018, 13
[9]   How mHealth can facilitate collaboration in diabetes care: qualitative analysis of co-design workshops [J].
Bradway, Meghan ;
Morris, Rebecca L. ;
Giordanengo, Alain ;
Arsand, Eirik .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (01)
[10]   SEIPS 3.0: Human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety [J].
Carayon, Pascale ;
Wooldridge, Abigail ;
Hoonakker, Peter ;
Hundt, Ann Schoofs ;
Kelly, Michelle M. .
APPLIED ERGONOMICS, 2020, 84