The voice of patients in system redesign: A case study of redesigning a centralized system for intake of referrals from primary care to rheumatologists for patients with suspected rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The published literature demands examples of health-care systems designed with the active engagement of patients to explore the application of this complex phenomenon in practice. METHODS: This case study explored how the voice of patients was incorporated into the process of redesigning an element of the health-care system, a centralized system for intake of referrals from primary care to rheumatologists for patients with suspected rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-centralized intake. The phenomenon of patient engagement using "patient and community engagement researchers" (PaCERs) in research and the process of redesigning centralized intake were selected as the case. In-depth evaluation of the case was undertaken through the triangulation of findings from the document review and participants' reflection on the case. RESULTS: In this case, patients and PaCERs participated in multiple activities including an initial meeting of key stakeholders to develop the project vision; a patient-to-patient PaCERs study to gather perspectives of patients with RA on the challenges they face in accessing and navigating the health-care system, and what they see as key elements of an effective system that would be responsive to their needs; the development of an evaluation framework for future centralized intake; and the choice of candidate centralized intake strategies to be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The described feasible multistep approach to active patient engagement in health-care system redesign contributes to an understanding of the application of this complex phenomenon in practice. Therefore, the manuscript serves as one more step towards a patient-centred health-care system that is redesigned with active patient engagement.

Co-design of a patient experience survey for arthritis central intake: an example of meaningful patient engagement in healthcare design.

BACKGROUND: To describe the process of patient engagement to co-design a patient experience survey for people with arthritis referred to central intake. METHODS: We used a participatory design to engage with patients to co-design a patient experience survey that comprised three connected phases: 1) Identifying the needs of patients with arthritis, 2) Developing a set of key performance indicators, and 3) Determining the survey items for the patient experience survey. RESULTS: Patient recommendations for high quality healthcare care means support to manage arthritis, to live a meaningful life by providing the right knowledge, professional support, and professional relationship. The concept of integrated care was a core requirement from the patients' perspective for the delivery of high quality arthritis care. Patients experience with care was ranked in the top 10 of 28 Key Performance Indicators for the evaluation of central intake, with 95% of stakeholders rating it as 9/10 for importance. A stakeholder team, including Patient and Community Engagement Researchers (PaCER), mapped and rated 41 survey items from four validated surveys. The final patient experience survey had 23 items. CONCLUSION: The process of patient engagement to co-design a patient experience survey, for people with arthritis, identified aspects of care that had not been previously recognized. The linear organization of frameworks used to report patient engagement in research does not always capture the complexity of reality. Additional resources of cost, time and expertise for patient engagement in co-design activity are recognized and should be included, where possible, to ensure high quality data is captured.

Models of Arthritis Care: A Systems-level Evaluation of Acceptability as a Dimension of Quality of Care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a systems-level baseline evaluation of central intake (CI) and triage systems in arthritis care within Alberta, Canada. The specific objectives were to (1) describe a process for systems evaluation for the provision of arthritis care; (2) report the findings of the evaluation for different clinical sites that provide arthritis care; and (3) identify opportunities for improving appropriate and timely access based on the findings of the evaluation. METHODS: The study used a convergent mixed methods design. Surveys and semistructured interviews were the main data collection methods. Participants were recruited through 2 rheumatology clinics and 1 hip and knee clinic providing CI and triage, and included patients, referring physicians, specialists, and clinic staff who experienced CI processes. RESULTS: A total of 237 surveys were completed by patients (n = 169), referring physicians (n = 50), and specialists (n = 18). Interviews (n = 25) with care providers and patients provided insights to the survey data. Over 95% of referring physicians agreed that the current process of CI was satisfactory. Referring physicians and specialists reported issues with the referral process and perceived support in care for wait-listed patients. Patients reported positive experiences with access and navigation of arthritis care services but expressed concerns around communication and receiving minimal support for self-management of their arthritis before and after receiving specialist care. CONCLUSION: This baseline evaluation of CI and triage for arthritis care indicates satisfaction with the service, but areas that require further consideration are referral completion, timely waiting lists, and further supporting patients to self-manage their arthritis.