How should healthcare be reported in Catalonia? Qualitative study with healthcare leaders.

BACKGROUND: The Results Centre is the name of a project that, since 2012, has been openly publishing the results of each healthcare centre in Catalonia, with the idea of promoting benchmarking among centres and transparency toward society. As the project evolves, it has become increasingly necessary to adapt its contents and formats. The objective of this study is to identify the preferences and expectations of healthcare leaders regarding the Results Centre. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using the nominal group technique. Five nominal groups were created with the participation of 58 professionals (26 from hospital care, 16 from primary care, and 16 from long-term care centres). The areas of analysis were: (1) what the Results Centre of the future should be like; (2) what information needs should be addressed; and (3) what novelties should be incorporated to stimulate quality improvement. The spontaneity of ideas, intensity of recommendations, and intergroup consistency were analysed. The study was conducted in April 2019. RESULTS: The requirements reported by the participants to be met by the Results Centre included: being a tool for benchmarking and strategic decision-making; adjusted and segmented indicators; non-clinical information (patient experience, socio-economic status, etc.); and data accessible to all stakeholders, including citizens. The ideas were consistent across the different levels of care, although the intensity of recommendations varied depending on their content. CONCLUSIONS: Regional agencies that are accountable for health outcomes should be consistently committed to adapting to the needs of different stakeholders in the health system. This project is an example of how this requirement has been addressed in Catalonia.

Patient Satisfaction with Pre-Hospital Emergency Services. A Qualitative Study Comparing Professionals' and Patients' Views.

Objective: To describe patient satisfaction with pre-hospital emergency knowledge and determine if patients and professionals share a common vision on the satisfaction predictors. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in two phases. First, a systematic review following the PRISMA protocol was carried out searching publications between January 2000 and July 2016 in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. Second, three focus groups involving professionals (advisers and healthcare providers) and a total of 79 semi-structured interviews involving patients were conducted to obtain information about what dimensions of care were a priority for patients. Results: Thirty-three relevant studies were identified, with a majority conducted in Europe using questionnaires. They pointed out a very high level of satisfaction of callers and patients. Delay with the assistance and the ability for resolution of the case are the elements that overlap in fostering satisfaction. The published studies reviewed with satisfaction neither the overall care process nor related the measurement of the real time in responding to an emergency. The patients and professionals concurred in their assessments about the most relevant elements for patient satisfaction, although safety was not a predictive factor for patients. Response capacity and perceived capacity for resolving the situation were crucial factors for satisfaction. Conclusions: Published studies have assessed similar dimensions of satisfaction and have shown high patient satisfaction. Expanded services resolving a wide number of issues that can concern citizens are also positively assessed. Delays and resolution capacity are crucial for satisfaction. Furthermore, despite the fact that few explanations may be given due to a lack of face-to-face attention, finding the patient's location, taking into account the caller's emotional needs, and maintaining phone contact until the emergency services arrive are high predictors of satisfaction.