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

Author:

Visser Mildred1ORCID,‘t Hart Naomi1ORCID,de Mul Marleen1ORCID,Weggelaar‐Jansen Anne Marie123ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management Erasmus University Rotterdam The Netherlands

2. Clinical Informatics Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven The Netherlands

3. Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences Tilburg University Tilburg The Netherlands

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe 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.

Funder

ZonMw

Publisher

Wiley

Reference65 articles.

1. Executive Board 1. “Framework on Integrated People‐Centred Health Services: Report by the Secretariat” (2016) https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/250704.

2. World Health Organization. “WHO Framework for Meaningful Engagement of People Living With Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health and Neurological Conditions” (2023)  http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/367340.

3. World Health Organization. “WHO Global Strategy on People‐Centred and Integrated Health Services: Interim Report” (2015)  https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/155002.

4. World Health Organization. “Continuity and Coordination of Care: A Practice Brief to Support Implementation of the Who Framework on Integrated People‐Centred Health Services” (2018)  https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/274628.

5. Co-produced capability framework for successful patient and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: results of a scoping review

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3