Cargando…

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKenzie, Emily, Potestio, Melissa L., Boyd, Jamie M., Niven, Daniel J., Brundin‐Mather, Rebecca, Bagshaw, Sean M., Stelfox, Henry T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28561887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12576
_version_ 1783279341425131520
author McKenzie, Emily
Potestio, Melissa L.
Boyd, Jamie M.
Niven, Daniel J.
Brundin‐Mather, Rebecca
Bagshaw, Sean M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
author_facet McKenzie, Emily
Potestio, Melissa L.
Boyd, Jamie M.
Niven, Daniel J.
Brundin‐Mather, Rebecca
Bagshaw, Sean M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
author_sort McKenzie, Emily
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689241
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56892412017-12-01 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. Health Expect Original Research Papers 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-31 2017-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5689241/ /pubmed/28561887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12576 Text en © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Papers
McKenzie, Emily
Potestio, Melissa L.
Boyd, Jamie M.
Niven, Daniel J.
Brundin‐Mather, Rebecca
Bagshaw, Sean M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title_full Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title_fullStr Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title_full_unstemmed Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title_short Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
title_sort reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: a consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
topic Original Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28561887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12576
work_keys_str_mv AT mckenzieemily reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT potestiomelissal reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT boydjamiem reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT nivendanielj reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT brundinmatherrebecca reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT bagshawseanm reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT stelfoxhenryt reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking
AT reconcilingpatientandproviderprioritiesforimprovingthecareofcriticallyillpatientsaconsensusmethodandqualitativeanalysisofdecisionmaking