Measuring Older Peoples' Experiences of Person-Centred Coordinated Care: Experience and Methodological Reflections from Applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure in SUSTAIN.

INTRODUCTION: While several evaluation studies on (cost-)effectiveness of integrated care have been conducted in recent years, more insight is deemed necessary into integrated care from the perspective of service users. In the context of a European project on integrated care for older people living at home (SUSTAIN), this paper shares the experience and methodological reflections from applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) on person-centred coordinated care -the P3CEQ- among this population. METHODS: A combination of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis methods was used to assess the usability and the quality of applying a PREM among older people presenting complex care needs, using the P3CEQ delivery in SUSTAIN as a case study. 228 service users completed the P3CEQ and nine SUSTAIN researchers participated in a consultation about their experience administering the questionnaire. P3CEQ scores were analysed quantitatively using principal component analysis and multilevel linear regression. P3CEQ open responses and researcher notes collected when administering the questionnaire were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Service user inclusion was high and most P3CEQ items had low non-response rates. Quantitative analysis and researcher experience indicate the relevance of face-to-face administration for obtaining such an amount of data in this population group. The presence of a carer increased inclusion of more vulnerable respondents, such as the cognitively impaired, but posed a challenge in data interpretation. Although several P3CEQ items were generally understood as intended by questionnaire developers, the analysis of open responses highlights how questions can lead to diverging and sometimes narrow interpretations by respondents. Cognitive impairment and a higher educational attainment were associated with lower levels of perceived person-centredness of care. CONCLUSION: This study shows essential preconditions to meaningfully collect and analyse PREM data on older peoples' experiences with integrated care: face-to-face administration away from care providers, collection of reasons for non-response and open comments providing nuances to answers, and multilevel modelling taking into account diversity in the target population. Several areas of improvement for future PREM use in this population have been identified: use of administration and coding guides, inclusion of clear and easy to understand definitions and examples illustrating what questions do and do not mean, measures of the expectations of person-centred coordinated care, and procedures ensuring sound ethical research. These methodological learnings can enhance future evaluation of integrated care from a service user perspective.

Testing cost containment of future healthcare with maintained or improved quality-The COSTCARES project.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare costs need to be contained in order to maintain equality of access to care for all EU citizens. A cross-disciplinary consortium of experts was supported by the EU FP7 research programme, to produce a roadmap on cost containment, while maintaining or improving the quality of healthcare. The roadmap comprises two drivers: person-centred care and health promotion; five critical enablers also need to be addressed: information technology, quality measures, infrastructure, incentive systems, and contracting strategies. METHOD: In order to develop and test the roadmap, a COST Action project was initiated: COST-CARES, with 28 participating countries. This paper provides an overview of evidence about the effects of each of the identified enablers. Intersections between the drivers and the enablers are identified as critical for the success of future cost containment, in tandem with maintained or improved quality in healthcare. This will require further exploration through testing. CONCLUSION: Cost containment of future healthcare, with maintained or improved quality, needs to be addressed through a concerted approach of testing key factors. We propose a framework for test lab design based on these drivers and enablers in different European countries.

Supporting Innovative Person-Centred Care in Financially Constrained Environments: The WE CARE Exploratory Health Laboratory Evaluation Strategy.

The COST CARES project aims to support healthcare cost containment and improve healthcare quality across Europe by developing the research and development necessary for person-centred care (PCC) and health promotion. This paper presents an overview evaluation strategy for testing 'Exploratory Health Laboratories' to deliver these aims. Our strategy is theory driven and evidence based, and developed through a multi-disciplinary and European-wide team. Specifically, we define the key approach and essential criteria necessary to evaluate initial testing, and on-going large-scale implementation with a core set of accompanying methods (metrics, models, and measurements). This paper also outlines the enabling mechanisms that support the development of the "Health Labs" towards innovative models of ethically grounded and evidenced-based PCC.

Collaborative action for person-centred coordinated care (P3C): an approach to support the development of a comprehensive system-wide solution to fragmented care.

BACKGROUND: Fragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable 'blue print' mean that services are 'experimenting' with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings. METHODS: Two centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations. RESULTS: Extensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.

Attitudes to atypical and conventional antipsychotic drug treatment in clinicians participating in the cutlass study.

Objectives To examine clinicians' attitudes regarding the relative benefits and risks of conventional and atypical antipsychotic medication, and the perceived validity of the CUtLASS study. To examine the attitudes of participant clinicians' regarding the operation and administration, and the potential clinical impact of the findings. Method Two hundred and sixty-two clinicians were each sent an anonymous questionnaire, and invited to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each of to nine statements (from agree to disagree). Results Of the 112 clinicians who responded, 71% supported the CUtLASS study. Thirty-nine percent agreed with the statement that the clinical efficacy of atypicals was superior to conventional antipsychotics, while 27% disagreed and 34% were undecided. Thus, two-thirds of participating clinicians revealed no uncertainty on a key question being tested in the CUtLASS study. Further, the vast majority (97%) considered that atypicals were associated with less severe side effects. Conclusions In clinical studies, recruitment strategies relying on referrals from clinicians may find that some clinicians identify fewer patients than expected. This can lead to a relatively low yield of potential study subjects and possibly a selection bias. Surveys of clinicians approached to participate in clinical studies provide a potential mechanism to explore attitudes relevant to participant recruitment.