Healthcare professionals' perspective on the organization of COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare: perspective, barriers and facilitators

被引:0
作者
Bek, L. M. [1 ]
Ista, E. [2 ,3 ]
Berentschot, J. C. [4 ]
Hellemons, M. E. [4 ]
Aerts, J. G. J. V. [4 ]
Ribbers, G. M. [1 ,5 ]
Heijenbrok-Kal, M. H. [1 ,5 ]
van den Berg-Emons, H. J. G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Dept Rehabil Med, Dr Molewaterpl 40, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Sophia Childrens Hosp, Erasmus MC, Div Paediat Intens Care,Dept Neonatal & Paediat In, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Dept Internal Med, Sect Nursing Sci, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Dept Resp Med, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[5] Rijndam Rehabil, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
COVID-19; Aftercare; CPSET questionnaire; Care pathway; Healthcare process assessment; Barriers; Facilitators; PATHWAYS; OUTCOMES; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1080/20479700.2024.2413796
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
BackgroundAfter the outbreak of COVID-19, new post-hospital aftercare for patients with COVID-19 had to be established which healthcare professionals (HCPs) had to implement in their healthcare settings.PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate HCPs' perspective on the organization of COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare and identify barriers and facilitators regarding this aftercare in the Netherlands.MethodsIn this mixed-methods study we sent out a survey 1 and 2 years after the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands to healthcare institutions (HCIs) and asked HCPs across multiple disciplines involved in the COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare to participate. The survey comprised three parts: (1) demographics; (2) the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool as quantitative measure (CPSET; five domains; scoring range 0-100) to assess HCPs' perspective on COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare; and (3) barriers and facilitators regarding this aftercare as a qualitative measure. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were performed.ResultsAt 1 year, 82 HCPs from 48 HCIs, and at 2 years, 29 HCPs from 24 HCIs participated in the survey. Overall, HCPs had a favorable perspective on COVID-19 aftercare in both assessments. The CPSET domain 'patient-focused organization' scored highest (median 81.7 [interquartile range 75.0-90.0] and 85.0 [78.3-96.7]) and 'monitoring of follow-up care' lowest (67.1 [55.7-75.7] and 70.0 [52.0-86.7]) at 1 and 2 years, respectively. According to HCPs the COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare solutions to overcome the identified barriers include a clear follow-up and referral procedures with emphasis on multidisciplinary treatment, employment of more HCPs, and extension of treatment duration.ConclusionWe concluded that HCPs generally held a positive perspective on COVID-19 aftercare, despite its rapid development and reliance on expert opinion. Key steps in improving COVID-19 aftercare include using quality indicators for monitoring of follow-up care, establishing a well-defined aftercare pathway, addressing resource constraints, and enhancing multidisciplinary collaboration and communication. These insights obtained from HCPs are crucial for policymakers and national healthcare authorities to further improve COVID-19 post-hospital aftercare and for pandemic preparedness.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] The Use of Patient-reported Outcomes (PRO) Within Comparative Effectiveness Research Implications for Clinical Practice and Health Care Policy
    Ahmed, Sara
    Berzon, Richard A.
    Revicki, Dennis A.
    Lenderking, William R.
    Moinpour, Carol M.
    Basch, Ethan
    Reeve, Bryce B.
    Wu, Albert W.
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2012, 50 (12) : 1060 - 1070
  • [2] [Anonymous], FMS: Langdurige klachten en revalidatie na COVID-19 Richtlijnendatabase
  • [3] [Anonymous], Post-COVID Conditions
  • [4] CO-FLOW: COvid-19 Follow-up care paths and Long-term Outcomes Within the Dutch health care system: study protocol of a multicenter prospective cohort study following patients 2 years after hospital discharge
    Bek, L. Martine
    Berentschot, Julia C.
    Hellemons, Merel E.
    Huijts, Susanne M.
    Aerts, Joachim G. J., V
    van Bommel, Jasper
    van Genderen, Michel E.
    Gommers, Diederik A. M. P. J.
    Ribbers, Gerard M.
    Heijenbrok-Kal, Majanka H.
    Van Den Berg-Emons, Rita J. G.
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [5] Preparedness and the importance of meeting the needs of healthcare workers: a qualitative study on Ebola
    Belfroid, E.
    van Steenbergen, J.
    Timen, A.
    Ellerbroek, P.
    Huis, A.
    Hulscher, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2018, 98 (02) : 212 - 218
  • [6] Bellolio MF, 2009, ANN EMERG MED, V53, P685, DOI [10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.05.034, 10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub2]
  • [7] Experiences of frontline healthcare workers and their views about support during COVID-19 and previous pandemics: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis
    Billings, Jo
    Ching, Brian Chi Fung
    Gkofa, Vasiliki
    Greene, Talya
    Bloomfield, Michael
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [8] Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare
    Black, Nick
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
  • [9] Bravi Francesca, 2018, Int J Integr Care, V18, P7, DOI 10.5334/ijic.3972
  • [10] Prerequisites, barriers and opportunities in care for Q-fever patients: a Delphi study among healthcare workers
    Brus, Iris M.
    Spronk, Inge
    Haagsma, Juanita A.
    Erasmus, Vicki
    de Groot, Annemieke
    Loohuis, Alfons G. M. Olde
    Bronner, Madelon B.
    Polinder, Suzanne
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2023, 23 (01)