{"title":"Reflective Tool on Advanced Access to Support Primary Healthcare Teams: Development and Validation of an Online Questionnaire.","authors":"Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton, Christine Beaulieu, Marianne Renard, Maxime Sasseville, Lara Maillet, Catherine Hudon, Isabel Rodrigues, Sabina Abou Malham, Arnaud Duhoux, Jeannie Haggerty","doi":"10.1111/jep.14232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Awareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14232","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale: Awareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams.
Aims and objectives: To develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.
Methods: This sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.
Results: No reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.
Conclusion: This reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
