Cargando…

Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical qua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gagliardi, Anna R., Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz, Baker, G. Ross, Moody, Lesley, Scane, Kerseri, Urquhart, Robin, Wodchis, Walter P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7908767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33632200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0
_version_ 1783655787014389760
author Gagliardi, Anna R.
Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz
Baker, G. Ross
Moody, Lesley
Scane, Kerseri
Urquhart, Robin
Wodchis, Walter P.
author_facet Gagliardi, Anna R.
Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz
Baker, G. Ross
Moody, Lesley
Scane, Kerseri
Urquhart, Robin
Wodchis, Walter P.
author_sort Gagliardi, Anna R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical quality measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of general and specialty hospitals based on the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Patient Engagement framework. We derived a PE capacity index measure, and with Multiple Correspondence Analysis, assessed the association of PE capacity with hospital type, and rates of hand-washing, C. difficile infection rates and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Respondents (91, 66.4%) included general: < 100 beds (48.4%), 100+ beds (27.5%), teaching hospitals (11.0%) and specialty (13.2%) hospitals. Most featured PE in multiple clinical and corporate departments. Most employed PE in a range of Planning (design/improve facilities 94.5%, develop strategic plans 87.9%), Evaluation/Quality Improvement (accreditation 91.2%, develop QI plans 90.1%) and Service Delivery activities (develop information/communication aids 92.3%). Hospitals enabled PE with multiple supports (median 12, range 0 to 25), most often: 76.9% strategic plan recognizes PE, 74.7% patient/family advisory council, and 69.2% pool of patient volunteers; and least often: 30.0% PE staff, 26.4% PE funding and 16.5% patient reimbursement or 3.3% compensation. Hospitals employed a range of less (inform, consult) and more (involve, partner) active modes of engagement. Two variables accounted for 29.6% of variance in hospital PE capacity index measure data: number of departments featuring PE and greater use of active engagement modes. PE capacity was not associated with general hospital type or clinical quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with fewer resources can establish favourable PE conditions by deploying PE widely and actively engaging patients. Healthcare policy-makers, hospital executives and PE managers can use these findings to allocate PE resources. Future research should explore how PE modes and methods impact clinical outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7908767
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79087672021-02-26 Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey Gagliardi, Anna R. Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz Baker, G. Ross Moody, Lesley Scane, Kerseri Urquhart, Robin Wodchis, Walter P. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical quality measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of general and specialty hospitals based on the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Patient Engagement framework. We derived a PE capacity index measure, and with Multiple Correspondence Analysis, assessed the association of PE capacity with hospital type, and rates of hand-washing, C. difficile infection rates and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Respondents (91, 66.4%) included general: < 100 beds (48.4%), 100+ beds (27.5%), teaching hospitals (11.0%) and specialty (13.2%) hospitals. Most featured PE in multiple clinical and corporate departments. Most employed PE in a range of Planning (design/improve facilities 94.5%, develop strategic plans 87.9%), Evaluation/Quality Improvement (accreditation 91.2%, develop QI plans 90.1%) and Service Delivery activities (develop information/communication aids 92.3%). Hospitals enabled PE with multiple supports (median 12, range 0 to 25), most often: 76.9% strategic plan recognizes PE, 74.7% patient/family advisory council, and 69.2% pool of patient volunteers; and least often: 30.0% PE staff, 26.4% PE funding and 16.5% patient reimbursement or 3.3% compensation. Hospitals employed a range of less (inform, consult) and more (involve, partner) active modes of engagement. Two variables accounted for 29.6% of variance in hospital PE capacity index measure data: number of departments featuring PE and greater use of active engagement modes. PE capacity was not associated with general hospital type or clinical quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with fewer resources can establish favourable PE conditions by deploying PE widely and actively engaging patients. Healthcare policy-makers, hospital executives and PE managers can use these findings to allocate PE resources. Future research should explore how PE modes and methods impact clinical outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0. BioMed Central 2021-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7908767/ /pubmed/33632200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gagliardi, Anna R.
Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz
Baker, G. Ross
Moody, Lesley
Scane, Kerseri
Urquhart, Robin
Wodchis, Walter P.
Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title_full Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title_fullStr Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title_full_unstemmed Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title_short Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
title_sort hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7908767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33632200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0
work_keys_str_mv AT gagliardiannar hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT martinezjuanpablodiaz hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT bakergross hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT moodylesley hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT scanekerseri hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT urquhartrobin hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey
AT wodchiswalterp hospitalcapacityforpatientengagementinplanningandimprovinghealthservicesacrosssectionalsurvey