Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.
McKenzie, Emily; Potestio, Melissa L; Boyd, Jamie M; Niven, Daniel J; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; Bagshaw, Sean M; Stelfox, Henry T.
Afiliação
  • McKenzie E; Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Potestio ML; Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Boyd JM; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Niven DJ; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Brundin-Mather R; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Bagshaw SM; W21C Research and Innovation Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Stelfox HT; Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Health Expect ; 20(6): 1367-1374, 2017 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28561887
BACKGROUND: Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list. DESIGN: We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision-making process for establishing consensus. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients. RESULTS: Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the "Top 5" priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estado Terminal / Assistência Centrada no Paciente / Tomada de Decisões / Consenso / Melhoria de Qualidade / Prioridades em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estado Terminal / Assistência Centrada no Paciente / Tomada de Decisões / Consenso / Melhoria de Qualidade / Prioridades em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article